Ten oz

Ann Coulter has no bar. Ann Coulter is a complete liar. Comparing the level to which they lie wasn't my point. Comparing the level to which each is a political asset to the Democratic or Republican party was. Ann Coulter is a greater asset to the Republican Party than Bill Maher is to the Democratic party. I never said he wasn't a talented comedian. Dennis Miller is a talented comedian too. Bill Maher getting good ratings doesn't make him more politically relevant or a greater political asset. .....and yet Bill Maher has been bringing her on his show and giving her a platform for over 20's. The whole thing is an act. From Stephen Colbert to Bill Maher audiences on the left make the mistake of confusing entertainers with actual political commentators (my opinion). Stephen Colbert for example hosted most of the Republican candidates in 2016 and was gracious to them all. He even had Trump himself on his show, Link. Stephen joked a bit then sat by and allowed Trump to sell his wall uninterrupted. Colbert just had Chris Christie on last week to help sell his book and the interview was fun and relaxed. Like Maher Colbert is an entertainer and not a political commentator. On the Right they seldom ever confuse messaging with entertainment. It is one of the reason's Megan Kelly failed attempting to host an entertainment show. Her time on FoxNews had conditioned her to be combative and on message. Not light and agreeable. Where an interviewer like Maher has learned to subtly accent his guests to help perpetuate a conversation and make guests appear interesting Megan Kelly had only ever learned to blunt discussion and leave people bare in unflattering positions. Bill Maher will always through someone like Ann Coulter a bone to get them out of trouble during an interview. It is a safe space for her. People like Ann Coulter are always 100% on message and never allow the other side to get a word out unchallenged. Ann Coulter has a message and is constantly selling it every time her mouth is open. Bill Maher has a style but not a message. Bill Maher's act is political but it is just an act. Bill Maher has had on liars like Ann Coulter and Foreign Agents like Julian Assange yet the only person I recall Bill Maher being angry with was Ben Affleck of all people. Ben labelled a position Maher was taking as Islamophobic and Bill Maher was having no part of it. Meanwhile Maher regularly always Coulter to come on and lie her @ss off.

Bill Maher endorsed Ralph Nadar in 00' which helped elect Bush. Then in Aug. of 2016 in the midst of Russia's propaganda attacks he had on Julian Assange. WikiLeaks played role in helping to give Trump. Maher knew about the Russia too btw. He questioned Assange about it, accepted Assange's denials, and ended the interview praising Assange. In my opinion Maher has not been historically helpful far as influencing swing voters goes. I think he has caused more harm than done good by continuously giving people like Ann Coulter a platform to spread their lies from.

By this logic John Oliver is automatically more relevant than Maher because his ratings are better. I don't think ratings translate into political relevance. Maher himself has lamented this fact numerous times on his shows. In my opinion Maher feels entitled to the sort of surrogate positions within the Democratic party Ann Coulter enjoys within the Republican party. I do not know Maher personally so I can't speak to what he is or isn't deeply concerned about. As a kid (teenager) I watch his ABC Politically Incorrect show. Bill Maher had Ann Coulter on as a guest time and time again: 1997 , 1998, 2000, again in 2000, and 2001. Between the shows Politically Incorrect and Real Time I have no idea how many total times Bill Maher has had Ann Coulter on but it is a lot. Bill Maher has been arguing on air with Ann Coulter for decades. In my opinion it is all a gag. Just a big act to draw ratings. Bill Maher has helped Ann Coulter's career by having her on to promote her books and appearances. Self promotion is why people go on show's like Bill Maher's show and no one I can think of has been on more than Ann Coulter. Their professional relationship goes back over 20 years. They scratch each others backs.

I agree. Their appearance shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it does to many. A tall thin blond delivering a conservative message about immigration lends itself to a different tone and relatability for specific segments of the population. It is why FoxNews has spent the last couple surrounding their male pundits with younger attractive female analysts.

In context to politics he is totally irrelevant. Game of Thrones has a large audience but are also irrelevant to political discussions. I think Bill Maher is a hack with the caveat of as it applies to politics. Whatever Bill Maher once was Comedian, Actor, Late Night host, or etc his current schtick is political commentary. He is a hack at it. He likes to line issues he can knock down with one liners and uses his comedian roots as a shield whenever he gets called out on his B.S.. As a comedian he was funny. As a political pundit I find him self adsorbed, capricious, and arrogant. *I use to be a fan and have seen his perform stand up live.

Ann Coulter is a far more attractive female than Bill Maher is a male. Men in the public eye are far less critiqued on their appearance.

Ann Coulter is a regular speaker at CPAC and much of the language she has used in the 12 books she's authored has been coveted into campaign slogans by numerous Republicans. Ann Coulter is more directly embraced by the Republican party than Bill Maher is by the Democratic Party. Ann Coulter position in media is weaker than Bill Maher's position in media but her influence position as a party member and her political influence is far greater than Bill Maher's. To be honest I think Bill Maher has become totally irrelevant. To me the first sign of getting old is to start complaining about the young. Bill Maher complains about the impact of PC language on comedy, free streaming of media, and etc. He has become a cranky old man who is out of touch with the way younger generations experience the world. Have Julian Assange on his show in Aug. of 2016 in the midst of Russia's attack on the election and giving Julian Assange the benefit of the doubt was an example of how un-savvy Bill Maher is. Ann Coulter is more relevant in 2019 than Bill Maher and has a better understanding of who her audience is. I think Bill Maher has become a liability in that he doesn't speak for Democrats yet is perceived to.

Trevor Noah hit on one of my concerns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLfYaklGpIE Brown's campaign is called "Dignity of Work". He is blasting Trump for his "phony populism". At a rally a couple days ago he hit on soaring corporate profits and executive compensation. As with the other candidates in the field I feel it is a very weak message. Republicans have their slogans regarding taxes, regulation, profits, and etc on lock. Regardless of what the reality is economics is the one area where Republicans poll higher than Democrats. Polling shows the public prefers Democrats on seemingly every other issue. Democrats have a statistically significant edge with Heathcare, the Environment, Immigration, drug addiction, and so on. Polling on the issues. Over the last 40yrs from Reagan - Trump Republicans have consistently preached the same message that tax cuts and deregulation boost profits and empower business to expand and hire more people at better wages. It is total B.S. but it is also very simple and everyone has heard it a gazillion times. My phone can autofill the talking points they are so entrenched in our political vocabulary. I do not believe any candidate will be able to undo 4 decades worth of Republican messaging about taxes in the next 2yrs. Rather than attacking Trump on the only issue where his approval is strong, the only place where the public believes he is good, I wish Democrats would focus on Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy, and etc. Hard working Americans being left behind is language that only helps Conservatives. "Hard working Americans" should be removed from the Democratic vocabulary and replace with things like "young professionals" and "families looking towards retirement". In 2012 Obama didn't go mono e mono with Romney over tax policy and corporate profits. Obama talked about the Dream Act, ACA implementation, DOD spending/modernization, and the environment. While I realize those are all things every Democratic candidate does care about I don't feel they are doing a good enough bringing them front and center. Democrats need to be more than the pro-tax party. We live in nuance free character limited environment. Just Richard Ojeda recently ended his campaign I have assumed so to will Delaney sooner than later. Delaney has a generic campaign site with generic positions. He seems to be purely focused on Iowa. I suppose focusing on Iowa is an okay plan. If he can finish in the top 5 in Iowa I guess that would earn him some buzz.

I just render my opinion on Booker's announcement. I didn't mean to imply it meant Booker and his policies shouldn't be discussed. The only reason I didn't want to get into the weeds about the only proposal but I think there is a good chance a few other posters here will turn into an argument about taxes and the role of govt broadly. I think there's more difference between Harris and Gillbrand than there is Booker and Harris. I think Harris, Warren, Castro, and Booker are mostly in agreement on most things. They just split the same core voters. I would like to see more diversity in ideology among candidates.

Which ever one is it will become less so if forced to battle it out vs their own allies.

Cory Booker has announced he's running. This is a bit disappointing to me. For the record I like Booker, Warren, and Harris. I just don't see much daylight between them policy wise. They are 3 candidates who all agree on 99.999% of policy. I don't see the use in filling the field with candidates who all share identical policies.

Time is observed as a measurement. Reading a clock requires observation which requires an observer. Humans are that observer and humans experience things comparatively. To us time flows in a prescribed manner. While time may not be linear in absolute terms we (humans), per our state of existence, experience it linearly. Many measurements are abstract like this. How would you define big, fast, soft, loud, hot, heavy, wet, tall, and etc in absolute terms free from comparative observation?

I don't believe Trump cares about a Wall. He was thirsty for a distraction. The house just switched hands on the 3rd and all anyone was talking about was the shutdown. Trump's goal was achieved. He loves to be the focal point of attention. Even as positions like Attorney General, Chief of Staff, and Sec of Defense remain empty Trump is tweeting about his Wall and climate hoax theory. His base has proven themselves to be very loyal. They won't split with him over this issue in my opinion. Trump lost the popular vote. Rather than trying to flip Trump voters (not happening) Democrats should focus on boosting turnout among likely Democrat voters.

Sadly I think it is more like 2/5 of the U.S.. I doubt this. Trump and his supporters are aware of Coulter but she is not more important to them than are most FoxNews pundits. There is already a thread addressing border security.

Correct but it was the veto threat that created all of that. Had Trump signaled he'd accept the bill it would have floated through Congress easily. The inability of Congress to pass and up or down vote on budgets isn't the main ingredient to shutdowns here in the U.S.. What causes shutdowns here in the U.S. is when the President is at odds with what Congress passes or plans to pass. In Australia they have a Parliamentary system. Parliament selects the Prime Minister. If a Prime Minister were to buck the majority of Parliament and threat to shut the govt down they'd basically be asking to be replaced. My comments are directed towards the differences in the two systems. They are not an analyse of for the lasted shutdown.

I wouldn't mind discussing these plans in detail. If you start a thread to do so I will participate. My comments in this thread regarding the plans primarily apply to there potential impact on the Democratic Primary. I think focusing on such proposals is a mistake. People are fairly dug in on issues regarding government assistance, what is considered a minimum wage/living standard, and taxes that dredging them up is like poking proverbial hornets nest. Friendly fire on the left will challenge is the plans go far enough while on the right they'll be indigent and throw around labels like socialism. No point in Democrats beating each other up going into the weeds debating proposals that will all look the same via twitter character limits and short news media segments. So often we hear the talk about Trump being a Liar, Sexist, Racism, and etc; he is an unethical leader. I think people lose track of the fact that he is also a bad President. He is bad at the job in additional to being unethical. Under Trump debt has skyrocketed, no decisions have been made to strength or overhaul the ACA, global partnerships have weakened, we have no longer strategy in the Middle East (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), and so on. Trump and Conservative Pundits can trash income percentage based assistance proposals like the Rent Relief Act in their sleep. Most of them build their whole careers out of trashing such ideas. Harder to address are those areas where the nation is currently totally directionless. I rather see Democrats debate Syria, debt, and the the role technology plays in trade between the U.S. and China. Highlight the less discussed areas where Trump is weak and to ill informed to produce quick bumper sticker comebacks.

The Senate passed a unanimous vote voice vote on Dec. 19th. https://www.c-span.org/video/?456094-1/senate-passes-short-term-spending-bill-house-vote-expected-today It was Trump indicating that he didn't support it, the Presidential veto threat, which cause McConnell to formally hold up the process.

Here in the U.S. Congress has no influence over who the President is. In a Parliamentary system they do. It is a significant difference. If Congress was able to vote for who the President was Donald Trump never would have become President. If the Majority party in Congress had their preferred President in office there would virtually be no need for a Presidential veto.

Separate what?

I did not mean to blame Presidents. Rather I was pointing out that Congress has always been able to pass a vote. Shutdowns occur when the President flashes their veto power. Sometimes it is for good reason and other times for bad reasons. In context to the post I was responding to I wasn't commenting of who is to blame for shutdowns rather i meant to describe the components needed for a shutdown. If the Presidential veto didn't exist the USA wouldn't have shutdowns. That isn't meant as a judgement on whether the presidential veto should exist. We have a 2 Party system. One party or the other is always in the Majority. Even when the Senate is split 50/50 the VP can break a tie. So getting an up or down vote is nearly always possible for the majority. So the way the Australian system holds Parliament accountable wouldn't work the same way here in the U.S.. Merely passing a vote is just a part of what it takes to keep the lights on or for a bill to become a law. Sometimes in the House and or Senate the majority party passes things they know will never go anywhere just to antagonize the President. For example Republicans voted to repeal the ACA over 50 times. In my opinion the easiest way to made shutdown more difficult is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that in lieu of Congress passing and POTUS signing a new year's budget the previous years budget is automatically renewed/continued as is till such time a new budget is passed.

The problem is that this whole situation is currently being negotiated in bad faith. Trump already asked for and received the budget increases to hire 15,000 new Border Patrol agents 2yrs ago. Despite massive spending increases and a mandate from Trump for more Agent there has only been a net gain of 128 individuals which is only a tiny fraction of what they need to meet mandates they have already been budgeted for. So the very Agency Trump and Republicans are trying to Gin up more money for can't even use the money they have already been give and per their own admission don't need due to historically low immigration levels. If this debate were actually about border protection and being handled in good faith an obvious point of discussion would be how to reach the staffing mandates already in place using the extra money already allocated. This whole thing is all smoke and mirrors. I understand that in a polarized political landscape everyone on both sides accuses the other-side of dishonestly so one natural assumes the truth must be somewhere between but in this case, with this President, we are literally dealing with a complete work fiction. Trump has no plan for a 5.7 billion wall, Border Patrol already received money they don't need and aren't using, and immigration levels are historically low. There is no logical deal for Senate Republicans and Democrats to reach. Any deal they reach is just window dressing Trump either approves or disapproves of.

Maybe but let's not forget the Senate also unanimously voted to support the bill which ultimately ended the shutdown prior to the shutdown occuring to begin with. Ultimately what Republicans will or won't support will depend on Trump. Nothing any other Republicans says currently matters.

You are qouting me in the absence of the rest of what I said regarding GDP.

As for the rest of your post this link illistrates that the stock market value under Obama out performed Trump through the same period. Can we get back on topic now?

Bottom five states specifically listed in the study your link cites are Kentucky (#46), Massachusetts (#47), New Jersey (#48), Connecticut (#49), and Illinois (#50). Kentucky & Massachusetts have had a Republican Governor since 2015, New Jersey's Governor was Republican Chris Christie from 2010 up till just 2 weeks ago, and Illinois Governor was Republican Bruce Rauner up till 2 just 2 weeks ago. 4 of the 5 states were Republican led at the time of the study. Of course that is a meaningless fact because the study your link cites didn't look at political party affiliation or tax policy as factors it analysed. Your link is gross misrepresentation of the study it cites. This link clearly identifies itself as an opinion piece and cites research done by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is a well known conservative activist group.