What History Tells Us about the GOP’s Chances of Holding the Senate If Trump Loses

We do not understand yet what will take place in the governmental election, but the odds plainly favor a Joe Biden triumph, and a lot more strongly prefer the Democrats holding your house. Harry Truman in 1948 was the only president whose party retook your house before completion of his presidency, after losing it. If Biden wins, much of his program will hence depend upon whether Democrats take the Senate. If Trump pulls out a surprise success, his capability to keep confirming judges at a vigorous clip will similarly depend upon the Senate. In some ways, control of the Senate might be a lot more important over the next 2 years than control of the White House. Democrats require a net gain of 4 Senate seats to gain control, or three to develop an evenly divided Senate in which the vice president casts deciding votes.

As of now, the ballot shows a close, competitive contest in the Senate. The RealClearPolitics averages favor the Democrats getting the 4 seats they require, getting Colorado from Cory Gardner, Maine from Susan Collins, Arizona from Martha McSally, North Carolina from Thom Tillis, and Iowa from Joni Ernst, while losing Doug Jones in Alabama. Polling might be trusted, but it might likewise be missing out on something. Even aside from the general problems why polls missed out on Republican citizens in 2016 and 2018, we might be dealing with an especially high-turnout election, which could do unforeseeable things if there are a great deal of the type of citizens who are hard to record in polls. So, we need to be thinking less about what we see as certainties in the polling, and more about ranges of possible results.

Here are the states for which we have Senate ballot, ranked by the "Break" metric I have actually used in previous elections-- i.e., what percentage of undecideds in the polling average need to vote Republican to get the Republican prospect to 50 percent. The Georgia unique election is listed twice here to compare the Democrat, Raphael Warnock, both to the incumbent Kelly Loeffler and to the Republican survey leader, Representative Doug Collins. Unless one candidate clears 50 percent of the vote, nevertheless, both Georgia Senate elections would be chosen in runoffs on January 5, perhaps with control of the chamber still unsettled.

In an election with upside surprises, Republicans hold out hope for John James in Michigan and Jason Lewis in Minnesota (maybe less in the latter now that Lewis is off the trail for emergency hernia surgical treatment). On the disadvantage, a really bad year could take out some or all of the Republican-held seats in Georgia, South Carolina, Kansas, Alaska, and Montana. To finish the picture, here are the races that are unpolled and not anticipated to be competitive, more of which are presently in Republican hands:

How typical is it for the Senate dominoes to fall difficult to one side in a presidential-election year-- and is it always towards the side that wins the White House? Let's walk through the last 26 presidential years, going back to 1916 (the very first governmental election after the 17th Amendment inaugurated the direct popular election of Senators). How has the celebration losing the presidential election normally fared? The chart below ranks the performance of the losing celebration by a rough "Score" metric described in the notes, varying from the best losing parties (Al Gore's Democrats in 2000 and Bob Dole's Republicans in 1996) to the worst (Herbert Hoover's Republicans in 1932).

There's a lot to unpack here. Let's begin with the topline: The average losing celebration in a presidential election loses 2 seats in the Senate, and loses 21 of 34 Senate races. Losing a web of 2 seats would be great news for Republicans; however Mitch McConnell and his caucus are protecting 23 seats out of 35, so they will either have to win a lot more races than usual, or lose a lot more seats.

Overall, the party losing the governmental election has actually gotten seats 10 times, broken even two times, lost 2 seats 4 times, and lost 4 or more seats ten times. So, 16 out of 26 previous results would follow Republicans holding their majority. But five elections caused significant shifts of eight to twelve seats in the Senate in favor of the winners: Warren G. Harding in 1920, Franklin D. Roosevelt ousting Herbert Hoover in 1932, Harry Truman's surprise reelection in 1948, Ronald Reagan ousting Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Barack Obama in 2008. Those winners had coattails.

Republicans require to win 21 Senate races to keep 51 seats. Only one losing celebration has actually handled that: Bob Dole's Republicans in 1996. Dole is remembered as a disastrously bad candidate who won a popular-vote majority in only six states-- the largest of which was Alabama-- however his mad project down the home stretch in 1996 against a complacent Democratic Party conserved the Republican majorities in both Houses, leaving Republicans with 55 senators. Only in 3 other elections (Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988, and George W. Bush over Gore in 2000) did the losing governmental party win more Senate races than it lost. All of those included voters picking Republican presidents and Democratic senators.

Keep in mind the difference between national Republican losses in 1976, 1992, and 1996-- all of which saw Republicans hold their ground or gain seats in the Senate-- and the last two Republican losses, in 2008 (when Republicans lost 8 seats) and 2012 (when they lost 25 out of 33 races). The modification for the worse may be attributable solely to Obama's unique power to turn out his citizens, however it also reflects more broadly the shift toward party-line ballot and elections decided by turnout.

Likewise, this time, unlike in 1992 or 1996, there is no third-party candidate whose voters may pull the Republican lever downticket. The 1948 election is explained in good part by the truth that the Democrats divided in three at the presidential level (with Henry Wallace defecting from the celebration's left wing, and Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond defecting from its right) while those voters pulled the lever for House and Senate Democrats.

Those are the results. However how did we get to them? Something that leaps out of the information, notwithstanding a couple of exceptions (such as 2000, 1932, and 1920) is that there is not really an extremely strong relationship in between the nationwide popular vote (for which, as usual, I use the two-party vote) and a party's efficiency in Senate races. Partly, that is because of the irregular function of incumbency in Senate races, but it is also because of the method the Senate map works. Each state counts equally despite size, and a 3rd of the states have no Senate race in a normal governmental year. So, the governmental ticket's performance might look rather different when matched up with the Senate map.

I calculated, for the column marked "Avg2P," the two-party popular vote each year across just the states with Senate races. I used an unweighted average (the two-party choose each state, divided by the variety of races) rather than add up the votes, to approximate the equal weight of each race in the Senate. In some years, that provided the losing presidential celebration a substantially much better proving. Dole may only have actually won a bulk in six states, however five of them had Senate races, and one (his house state of Kansas) had two. And the same class of Senate seats that was up in 1996 is up once again this year. By this procedure, Nixon in 1960, Gerald Ford in 1976, and John McCain in 2008 all balanced a bulk of the two-party popular vote in states with Senate races. It did refrain from doing Republicans much excellent in 2008, however-- with the same map as 1996.

Based on existing ballot, Trump's unweighted average is 52 percent of the two-party popular vote across all states with Senate races (counting Georgia two times), and 50 percent throughout the 23 Senate races in which we have Senate ballot. In that sense, Republicans are again playing on home turf in the Senate races. It does not matter that Trump will get massacred in California, New York, Hawaii, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut, and Washington, because none of those states has a Senate race in 2020.

Averages, nevertheless, can likewise be tricking. Blowout or uncontested races can substantially skew the picture of what the landscape looks like for contested races. Let's take a look at how the results of Senate races in presidential years were distributed:

Unsurprisingly, the best and worst provings by a losing party tend to line up with the years when the losing party won, or lost, a lot of the races decided by single-digit margins. Democrats in 2000 ran the table in close races, even winning one contest with a dead man running versus the incumbent, and Republicans in 1996 likewise won majority of the single-digit races. In extreme Democratic blowout years such as 1932, 1936, and 1964, by contrast, there are extremely couple of close races at all. Republican politicians also had more blowouts than the Democrats in 1996: twelve races won by double digits, compared to six for the Democrats.

1980 is an extreme example of a sweeping presidential victory carrying a great deal of Senate seats with it. Senate Democrats, typically, won 51.2 percent of the vote, running nearly ten points ahead of Jimmy Carter. But winning the Louisiana Senate race by 93 points did not matter nearly as much as the reality that 19 Senate races that year were chosen by less than 13 points, and Democrats lost 16 of them. The Reagan Revolution would have looked really various if Reagan's victory had actually not carried in all those Republican senators. That had long-lasting repercussions: 1984 would be the first time Republicans won 10 or more Senate races by double-digit margins given that 1928; safe Republican seats have actually been a fixture since. The 19 such Republican wins in 2016 was the most ever. An outcome like 1980, with Trump in the role of Jimmy Carter, would be the Republican headache scenario. On the other hand, one aspect that dispirited Democratic citizens that year in the Western states was that Reagan's success was apparent from the East Coast results announced while the surveys were still open. That is not taking place in 2020.

One noteworthy item in Senate history that has now all but vanished is the uncontested race. Tom Cotton this year is only the 5th Republican Senate candidate considering that 1916 to deal with neither an official nor de facto Democratic opponent (I counted independents where it was clear which side they would caucus with.) By contrast, 49 Democrats have actually run uncontested, the terrific bulk of them in southern states prior to 1980. It was as soon as prevalent for Republicans to quit completely on three or 4 Senate contests in the South every year.

Aside from 2008 and 2012, the states in which the losing celebration got clobbered in competitive Senate races tended to be years when the losing celebration did rather inadequately, typically, in the presidential vote in states with Senate races, creating an undertow that the party's Senate prospects might not resist. Similarly, the years when the presidential ticket succeeded in the Senate states tended to see a much better performance in the competitive Senate races. That bodes well for Republicans if Trump does as well as, or better than, his present polling throughout the states that manage the Senate. Currently, it does not yet appear that the bottom has actually left of Trump in states such as Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Iowa, or North Carolina. That could matter quite a bit even if Trump himself decreases to defeat.

Read More

Coronavirus Pandemic Proves Danger Of Moving Means Of Production To Other Countries

I as a conservative, always have thought of the Chamber of Commerce on our side and advocated for them and I think in some ways it does but in this specific case it's baffling why they would oppose a Buy America incentive. Why would they do that, you may ask?

They have members that are multinational corporations that do business around the world and this country made a decision about 30 years ago that the most efficient allocation of capital was to moved many of the means of production to other countries. It was cheaper to buy from China but now we that vulnerability is being exposed.


It's not just China anymore India Germany Japan a lot of the key ingredients and components for all kinds of things from Tylenol all the way to pharmaceuticals and and even in the electronics realm those components even if we make the final product here we depend on those countries for those components and they're hoarding them, they're holding on to them because they need them to deal with the downturn and because their factories have been closed due to the Coronavirus which has revealed that industrial-strength is a key component of the national security of any country.

Efficiency has been the reason given for the migration of our entire production throughout this country. You know I could be more efficient by putting my kids to work in my basement weaving rugs but no I send them to school because it's a good thing so if efficiency is your only goal then maybe you're gonna miss the target. Yeah? Capitalism will always find the most efficient allocation of capital but from time to time the most out of the most efficient allocation of capital it's contrary to our national interest so the fact that we are dependent on China for rare earth minerals it's not in our national interest.

The fact that we can't make basic pharmaceuticals because they make all the ingredients in china is not in our national interest and it is in those instances where government and policy leaders have to stand up and say this is a vulnerability we can't allow. The bottom line is we don't win World War two if we can't turn car factories and appliance factories into munitions plants and tank makers. We don't win that war. The industrial output is a critical component of our national security and we're learning it the hard way right now.

Read More

2020 Democratic Primary Polling Analysis 2.0

All right, everyone it's time to analyze some more polling within the Democratic primaries. I mean on the Republican side, because it's an incumbent election as opposed to the last one. We only have to do half as much poll analysis. It really doesn't matter what the Republican primaries say: cuz Trump is the nominee I mean he will be running unless he has like a massive heart attack or something like that and dies or or actually gets removed from office, which won't happen at this point. Calls for impeachment have really fallen off the edge of the earth too. So that's no real. It longer really a problem. We'Ve got to look at three polls here. We'Ve got a pair of polls from respectively I'll do I do have this tab, open Emerson and The Economist from before the debates we have one poll so far after the debates. That is its period as the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth right afterwards. This is from Politico. Now Politico does not have a great track record for accuracy. I don't know whether these numbers are accurate. It shows a little bit of a shift, but not not a monumental earth-shattering amount, and some of the results, I would assume, would be a little bit odd, like like. Like a shift downwards for war and for example, I would consider odd after the first row of debates or or maybe a you know, significant rise for some candidate. But let me go through this and look at these. First and foremost. Biden is still on top again for the first time we finally had one polling period that the new polling period, where one of Biden's low numbers, is smaller than someone else's biggest number, which is Sanders being supposedly at 27. In the Emerson poll, the problem with the Emerson poll is, it is a complete. Statistical. Outlier has in ten points ahead of any of the other polls. Recently, 27 verses 19 and the Politico poll is the second-largest some of them, the others all have them. In the mid teens, 13, 14 and 15 respectively from the Hillmon mouth and the economists 27 is probably an outlier. I don't know if you can trust this poll anyway. It also shows Biden to 34, which is you know, kind of in line with the hill poll. But there are some wonky numbers there and I'm not sure. I think it's under estimating the fact that there's a small amount of support for the smaller candidates and I'm not sure what they ask people about all the candidates - maybe they compacted it more so maybe Sanders is just a strong second choice: candidate, like people who support Some of the left-wing individuals on the bottom they're like well it'll, be I support. You know Gabbard, but if she's knocked out I would support Bernie Sanders or something like that. It'S possible that was their methodology. If we look, though, just at the newest post-debate poll again keeping in mind, aggregated numbers are accurate, or at least more accurate, that they're kind of accurate single polls are rarely fully accurate. Some of these numbers are almost invariably going to be wrong. This puts Biden on 33, which is that's roughly in line with the aggregate. It shows him about stable, which that's I can imagine will be the case. I think his debate performance was good enough to keep him where he is, but not good enough to sort of seal. The deal which is natural Biden, is not naturally a good, debater or speaker he's more of the stable sane center-left. You know acceptable Democrat for the business Dems and some of the so-called centrists within the Democratic Party. Now the Democratic Party is highly schismatic, so you've got like a third of the parties really far left. Think Sanders is too far right. Another third of business Dems they're getting tired of that and then you've got the neoliberal stuck in the middle. With all the corporate money and they're trying to hold things together. Biden loses his biggest fundraising apparatus. The Sanders campaign is hemorrhaging money right now they sent out a circular, an email to people. Apparently yesterday they're, like oh, the average donation in the last campaign was at $ 27. This time around, it's only 13 or something like that. It'S like! Basically, they don't have enough money, like the grassroots style of campaign, does have its limits. The problem for Sanders, I'm going to tell you this. The one thing that could really Sanders up is the fact that he's perceived of by a lot of his former core fans. As a sellout because of the 2016 election, they wanted him to stand on principle and not endorse Hillary Clinton. They wanted him to stand aside and say: I'm not going to make an endorsement because the revolution continues and she doesn't represent the kind of ideological values. I have the problem: is he intended to run again and if he had done that it would have been political suicide? The Democrats would have come around him like a Mountain. Rolling down a hill in would have crushed him completely. He he and his fans cannot stand against. That kind of thing would have been a free-for-all. Then we have Sanders on 19. This again is roughly in line with the aggregate. It shows Warren at 12. Now this is also it's funny, because the economist Paul had her at 19 that it showed a rise like in line with the rise. The political poll shows her stabilizing at 12, which is sort of the aggregated number 12 point 6 Harris at 12, which shows her having a significant rise of about 5 points that I can imagine, I'm not sure that I would believe that it would be that much Though, and anyway of be temporary, the fact is that, unless, unless the rise puts you up towards the top one or two slots, it tends to be temporary. We saw this again in 2016 with all of these different Republican candidates. They rise up somewhere and they in the high teens the low twenties. Then they go back down or they rise up significantly above because they have a good debate performance. They make a good speech. They have a good interview on TV, they gain. Several points goes back down within a couple of weeks. I would expect, generally speaking, the numbers that you see will remain stable unless something significant happens, that's just the tendency. If they do deviate, it's usually temporary and they regress back to that mean if that is in fact the case, the only thing that can stop Biden is, he loses in Iowa and Sanders comes out of. Nowhere wins that in New Hampshire and looks a more electable and suddenly gained steam or like Warren, grabs, Nevada and sweeps Super Tuesday, or something like that, but Agia shows at exactly his. His numbers have been so remarkably stable for so long. It literally 666 there with Emerson economists and political, that's probably because we've got a good aggregate there, because all the numbers pretty much agree with each other, even though all the other numbers can be wonky. I would say his support is know between 5 and 7 percent somewhere within that general region. Sort of rounding out the top 5 betos nowhere to be seen in the latest round of polling he's respectively got a 1 a 3 and a 2 cory. Booker is about the same Booker's gon na overtake beto at some point and he sort of will round out the viable candidates, the top six in such a packed field. Technically, although I would say the top four, they like butter, gigs still has a little bit of work to do it. If Harris really has picked up that steam, it makes it harder, for, I think, P, but a geek to actually break through into the top four and and sort of become viable. You'Ve got to realize after a few more debates and they'll go on to the voting. Next year it's possible some people drop out before then. If their campaign war chest is completely empty. Like let's say Hickenlooper is completely broke. You can't self fund. Some of these people are not capable of self funding. Their campaigns rely on a traditional fundraising apparatus. If that's the case and they fall flat and they can no longer fundraise, they have to drop out. They don't want debt Bayona, that the idea is you drop out, and then you, you know basically embezzle that money politicians manage to do that through various means. All the time yang got no boost Klobuchar, as predicted when she first got in, has disappeared off the face of the earth. Gabbard didn't get a boost according to the political poll now again and and some people called uh tried to call me out they're like why didn't you put Gabbard in your top five candidates? Gabbard would be a close number six, but I had to make a decision here and the thing is Gabbard did well, she became more visible, but did she do well enough become visible enough to extend herself into electability in the minds of voters? I said no, it looks like I'm probably right. I think I am she is. She would be a strong candidate if you fielded her against Trump she'd, actually have a chance, she'd be like if you put buddy gig in front of Trump these. These two, particularly Julian Castro, pissed away his chance, so did Gillibrand they're they're out to Julian Castro, with his pandering Gillibrand, with her attempts to be a firebrand that completely fell flat, because you know Harris happened to be on the stage it didn't exactly worked after you Tiger mom candidates up there, one of which is very very white and erudite and the other one of which was trying to expose herself for the first time to a wider audience. Really that wasn't part of her core fan base. The latter she succeeded, Harris did Gillibrand, did not it's funny, then you have, like you know, yang. It'S like he's dead in the water he's tried he and Williamson. It was funny tried to excuse themselves, we're saying MSNBC it tampered with their microphones and stuff like that, and it's like okay, so you've got the two, the two weirdo candidates, literally I one of them, is preaching basically a form of communism which is ubi. I used to be in favor of ubi many years ago until I really thought about the economic impact and I realized oh, this will take the lower middle class and bunch it up with the most poor and even them out and make them more poor. It will take purchasing power from the middle class as well, by raising the cost of goods and services and inflating the currency. The rich aren't gon na care. You know they know $ 1,000 a month or whatever you want to give them doesn't matter to someone who's got billions of dollars. They don't notice the impact. The little people will the bottom 50 % of society get, and so no, I oppose ubi. It'S an attempt to even out the lower rungs of society, it's a form of soft communism for the masses, that's literally what it boils down to so he's got economic voodoo, he's a weirdo and then Williamson was up there. I expected her to take out love, beads and start meditating up on stage. She was arguably the craziest, but she wasn't even the biggest loser who's better O'Rourke of the two debates. The biggest loser was Beto because he was the only one. Who'D had a really truly poor performance that was technically a viable candidate. The rest of these people have viable Gillibrand is not viable shetan, as she never was. She never generated any traction. Klobuchar has never been viable Williamson. I didn't even know she was in the race. Her her name exposure now that's gone out is that you know when she fund raises she's gon na blow it all on LSD. I think there's probably better for the country than the rest of the Democrats. Platforms. Williamson 2020 give me drugs, Williamson, 2020 I'll, go in and preach it and eat more kale meeting Williamson 2020. The weird that I say is less harmful than anyone else on this stage. That'S what should be her campaign slogan. She should just make a mockery. Satire campaign about her own party at this point. She really should because the Democratic Party's falling apart when I look at the people up on stage getting away from polling analysis here from just a second. When I look at this stage, I don't see anyone who stands out the only people that strike me as even electable or people are Biden and but a geek, a Biden because he's already been in the White House he's been a VP he's the dynastic old politician. So he he looks to the role because he's been one step from the role not saying I'd, agree with him politically, I don't not saying I'd vote for him, because you know we don't need another pervert in the White House. We had enough of that with Bill. Clinton, so no I wouldn't vote for by, but he looks the part, especially for the business Dems. I mean that would be an advantage. He has in a fight with Trump is that he can coax some of the business Democrats back or he could potentially compete in a place like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. How did these losers can and then buddy gig, because he's young well-spoken? He gets his point across in a very erudite manner. The problem for buddy gig is the far left of the party hates him as much as it does Biden he's lower down he's, not the front-runner Kenney, whether that sort of attack it looks like despite his good performance, he got no boost. That'S because a lot of the the people that could support him, they're locked in with Biden if Biden were to collapse right now. I think the buddy gig would be the big winner. I think buddy gig and Sanders would absorb most of his support. Sanders had become the front-runner, but again could be hashing it out with Elizabeth Warren for second place. I think that's what would probably happen Harris might keep rising. I think Harris is a fluke I think Harris will be sort of like the the Ben Carson of the election cycle or something that, if she's gon na rise up here, because she had a good debate - performance, she's, gon na falter back down. This will probably happen at the other debates. I mean it's obvious. He is spoken fairly well as at least for a far left crowd. You got to realize the people who are actually looking at these numbers and saying whether they do or do not approve of these people in most of these polls. These are registered Democrats. That'S who they're trying to pull registered Democrats likely voters that lean left ideologically groups like that? Yes, they're gon na like what Harris said. Oh, she called him Trump, a racist and a sexist. She says she wants. You know health care for all, which is say more taxes, education for all, more taxes, student loan, debt, forgiveness, new green deal, banning guns. So basically it's a laundry list of far left for the things. Well, these people are just trying to out far left each other to be the anti Biden, because my denies everything else sewn up unless he makes a major mistake. The biggest problem for him is he probably well at the next debate or even before he could say something totally stupid and off-the-wall, even though, if you've noticed he's Obama's best friend, I was his VP Obama. Obama Obama. It'S always the talks about when he's on the debate stage. Practically I was Obama's, VP and friend, and Trump is bad, and yet he can't even score Obama's endorsement. If Obama were to endorse Joe Biden, he wins tomorrow he would become the roof of the Democratic nominee. Obama hasn't done. That now has he. He says. Oh, I, like Joe he's a good person poor Joe Biden. Oh my god, yeah didn't be funny. He gets Hillary Clinton's endorsement. He loses five points of support. He probably told her. Please don't endorse me yeah. I know I know I'm crooked and crazy too, and you probably want to but didn't you know hold off, but she was talking to bet. It was funny than better O'Rourke before the debate Erie launches his campaign calls the Clinton campaign probably kiss his ring. He still can't do anything. Beto is done. He needs to drop out. Come on. You lose against Ted Cruz in an election where, where the Democrats throw more money at your particular position, to try to steal Cruz's see than any other election, tens of millions of dollars, you've got high-level a grade. Politicians coming down there daily to stump for you, they've they're, pumping your campaign with every possible legacy, media tabloid steroid. They can and you still lose yeah. That'S not a good sign. He goes into the presidential election. Well, I'm better! Oh my god! Jai rating around, like a evangelical minister, and he still is a loser - he's never going to be in politics again, probably he's pissing away any chance to the eyes of state-level politics. Go back to being widows of the mayor of San Antonio. If they'll have you go back to that, are try for the legislature again when Cruz leaves, which could be a while since he's one of those he's one of the younger senators, it's fine Ted Cruz, one of the youngest people, the Senate, and it shows one of The problems with our legislative body, but yeah so yeah, there's a little bit of poll analysis of just talking. The democratic primaries have become. It is a circus. It'S fun to watch, I'm having a great time. This election is way better than 2016. This is way more unhinged than the Republican debates in 2016. This is way more weird and the Democratic field is so boring time around. Now it's exciting it's exciting, because I can't wait for the next debate. I want to see what weird these people say. I want to see Williamson say that everyone should have to take mescaline. I want to see Cory. Booker talk about more reparations to people who never experienced slavery. I want Sanders to try to read, face idli, explain how he's going to up the taxes on the richest people to 60 % and not raise anyone else's taxes. I want to hear these people explain their positions because their positions are stupid. These people are morons by and large, that's about all PL

Read More

Trump Makes History, Steps Into North Korea, Gets Attacked by Leftists

All right, everyone, it's fun to see the same people who applaud like socialism and leftism and communism in general, jumping down Trump's throat for daring to step across the DMZ into North Korea and like shake hands with Kim Jong gun. It was funny because there's a very funny image us on 4chan last night was like yes showed. Obama he's behind, like you know, four or five inches of bulletproof glass with binoculars looking across the DMZ from a mile, a fucking way from a fucking pillbox on the South Korean side, and you know talking about how he's weak and shit like that and then Trump's. Like he fuck it, basically just walks across with no guards optics win for Trump, a big optics win. It shows that negotiations are ongoing. This kind of stylized, very theatrical behavior, is very deliberate and somebody pointed out - and I had forgotten about this - I had joked quite some time ago about Trump - you know maybe crossing into North Korea or something - and I it was tongue-in-cheek at the time who I didn't Figure that would actually physically happen. It would be really legendary if the next summits in North Korea, if it's in Pyongyang Trump, is an absolutely no goddamn danger if he goes to North Korea - and he knows it - here's the thing Obama took in various strategic things like wow. I know North Korea is a hostile state. I'Ve been warned, it could be a problem, but if they poison you're saying if Trump were to go into North Korea - let's - let's just argue devil's advocate here - he goes into North Korea gets poisoned and they almost die. So they shoot him in the head. What happens? Pyongyang gets nuked off the face of the earth and retribution and most of North Korea's killed instantly. He knows that he doesn't give a fuck is he even pence was like looking across the binoculars. It is funny cuz. Every president, other than Herbert Walker - and this would be in recent history - has visited the DMZ Herbert Walker. That was vice president though, and visited it at one point so that sort of still counts. So every other presidents visited it, but he's the only president who's actually gone into North Korea. No other president has because, of course, before the 50s there was no North Korea. It was just Korea, and so presidents back then couldn't have Trump is the only one with the balls to have done so this sort of rap war being built between North and South Korea, especially, but also between Trump and Kim jong-un, uniquely as individuals as figureheads charismatic Leaders with certain things in common in their governance, style, sort of that theatrical, bent two things: Trump, having been basically of a master actor most of his life, it goes well, it could bring about peace. This is the closest that we've had to peace in the Korean Peninsula since North and South Korea split in the first place. I think that that's a good thing and to watch people who are supposedly liberal, deriding him and saying he shouldn't be meeting with dictators. He shouldn't be meeting with mean people. How else do you expect peace to actually occur? And meanwhile people were you know hilariously posting pictures of FDR when he was sitting next to Joseph Stalin back in the 40s? I'M not sure that's the best example, because Stalin was, you know, really truly a despicable human being Kim jong-un is just following in the footsteps of his parents and of his parent anyway, and some people have pointed out well, and this is again get them to jump Down your throat to like: well, we do shitty things too. You know we have people executed, we drone people overseas, you bomb things all the time and invade, and it's like people say no. No, it's totally different. No, it's not not really. This is no. We'Ve got way way more people in prison than North Korea ever has. Don'T you think, that's a fucking problem. I remember when liberals were like. Oh, we need prison reform Trump passes prisoner farm. Oh it's not enough. They'Re, like oh, we want peace, Trump tries to get peace in Korea - oh my god orange man, bad. What the fuck are you people smoking? You must be hanging out with Williamson again I support any overture that could possibly benefit the fight for peace in the Korean Peninsula. Any overture is appropriate in the situation, because you've also got a deal understand something else. Until the last few years we were not dealing with a fully nuclear North Korea. We were dealing with a North Korea that had tested a couple of know relatively primitive, like our our efforts in the forties style atomic weapons and not with a 100 % success rate. Now they've tested what they consider an h-bomb either that arose a number of atomic weapons hooked together or a very large atomic weapon, something like we developed in the late 40s early 50s. It'S not exactly the most efficient design or device. It'S not exactly. I mean it's not, you know the Tsar bomb or something like that, but it's considerably better, based on the magnitude of earthquake generated by their most recent test. It was either of a primitive h-bomb design, or it was something else, a very large atomic weapon, regardless of shows they either have more nuclear material or a more sophisticated design. The other risk is always this: what happens if they do something wrong and one of these weapons they're developing, goes critical in a factory somewhere. You know, there's not assembling in the tunnel and probably shipping it there. What happens if they accidentally, you know Nanook themselves, what the fuck do, you think is gon na happen. What happens if China detects that, as you know, some sort of sabotage and starts fighting or that invades North Korea? Oh, my god, we can't do anything to stop it anymore. You know quick rush. The border get a million men and their double-quick. What happens? It'D be fuckin anarchy, it'd be a free-for-all and bring them it'd, probably bring about a nuclear standoff. The u.s. is in the region, you've got Russia right on their border. South Korea and Japan would be like scrambling to get involved. It'D be the rush for North Korea. Can we possibly think of a situation which it's good idea to avoid that I find it funny that people are like? Oh, you know we're liberals. You know Trump orange man bad. If he talks, you know in any sense about it wrong. Oh, my god, we can't do anything there, but if he wants peace in North Korea, that's also bad, so so he's wrong if he makes peace overtures he's wrong. If he's strong arms a country he's wrong, if he sanctions and he's wrong, if he removes sections, I think I see the definition of Trump derangement syndrome here and that's really what it's about they're, not willing to give him any credit. I think that if there's even the remote possibility of a lasting peace in Korea, absolutely we should push for it. Thank goodness Trump's number-one willing to do that. Number two he's pretty adept at it. Look at the progress that's been made that the real success of Trump. So far hasn't been in u.s. North Korean relations. That'S just a floor show, but by showing that mutual respect by showing hey, I can step into your country. I know you're not gon na stab me in the back or something that allows the rope public of Korea and North Korea to negotiate further. It allows the two Koreas to solve their differences they're. The main actors in this, the u.s. is simply the guarantor and backer of South Korea. Just like China is involved, they're simply the backer and guarantor well enough, backer much anymore of North Korea. We'Re interested parties that happen to guarantee the stability of the region with our militaries but they're the two Koreas, they're the only people that lay claim to the peninsula they're the Koreans there in Korea. It'S not a piece of the u.s. South Korea is not a US State. North Korea is not a province of China. It'S not beholden to Beijing, it's its own autonomous, well, semi, autonomous Kingdom of sorts communist ajusshi Kingdom. You know a lot of people. I think on the left are just sad, because if North Korea disappears it's another communist nation, at least a name that stopped existing, mainly because people there got tired of the constant war footing, it goes motorcycle name, /, again, always a fun time. When I'm recording videos. I don't mind it as much. I think he finally got a muffler, but I mean seriously he's the first u.s. president to do this. This takes some balls because it could have been a big optics loss. Think about this. Let'S say that Kim Jong gun doesn't like Trump doesn't want peace fuck Trump. Basically, he wanted to one-up him. Let him walk across into North Korea and then push him back out or say: have the guards like escort him back across or stop him when he tries to cross the line or something like that could have been a major diplomatic disaster. Trump didn't give a fuck. He walked right across. I think that that I think that that's a good thing and of course you know there was never any real risk involved and no other presidents been fucking doing it. Trump shouldn't deal with dictators. Okay, so we should just leave the dictators alone to be dictatorial and we should never try to achieve peace, because we happen not to agree with these people. This is the same fundamentally screwed up mentality that keeps violence going in our own streets, o bash, the fash throw milkshakes and rocks at shit at people like it doesn't matter if it's actually, if we've actually identified a totalitarian yeah that dude the maca cap. While he's got a manga cap on, he must be a fascist dude who can throw a milkshake at him? Oh, it's just a milkshake. What are you snowflakes worried about? No we're not! We can't coexist with or talk to or tolerate, the existence of certain groups of people. We have to punch people in order to prevent a violent uprising, or I don't know whatever illogical thing. The commies are saying these days, don't call yourself a liberal. If you don't want to see peace in the Korean Peninsula, you can say you can come out and say I don't believe Trump can achieve it. Yeah, of course I mean in any given time just because Trump shakes Kim's hand and goes across the DMZ, doesn't magically mean an era of warm relations or something like that, but it gets the ball rolling. It'S a start. Negotiations can continue. It'S a lot warmer than the Hanoi conference that fell apart after what 12 fucking hours because of because again of the bowl tonight's insisting on denuclearization now Trump has stated that again, but he's also said it's not on a timetable. Here'S what I think - and this is what I think he's moving towards and if he does he's a fucking genius and he will be remembered fondly for this - bringing about peace in Korea potentially or laying the groundwork thereof. It seems that he's more focused on trying to get the two Koreas to sign a true peace treaty. If that happens, in the absence of US or Chinese involvement with or without us signing anything that will allow denuclearization to begin, because there will no longer be any justification for Western intervention in North Korea and there will no longer be any intervention, a justification for them To bother with a nuclear program because they spent half a century. Well, you know at least talking about wanting news saying it was a deterrent August to prevent us from being invaded by the evil imperious. Well, if the evil imperialists can invade you, because there's no longer a need for a nuclear deterrent, because there's no war, there's no hostility. Yeah, who cares they'll, probably sell their nuclear weapons? Hell, let's buy them up and put them in our nuclear plants or do whatever it is they do with them. They'Ll probably give them to France. Everyone wants the French to dispose of their nuclear weapons. Why is it that France gets to do that? Why don't we get that cool job? Can i buy one? Can I have an atomic bomb? I can think of some good things to do with that, but put it inside a big-ass rocket and I'll just blast myself off into the moon and they all die, but it'll be pretty funny. Then my remains can be. Aren'T there a few uh? Wasn'T there one lunar orbit with humans on it and they crashed and burned and their remains might be on the moon? Are there? Any ones remains like I know there are. Some people have died in outer space and stuff like that, but I mean, like you know, on another planet or asteroid or something I don't, I'm not sure off to study my space history loom. What is a fascinating thing, especially in the early days of testing, when there were some rocket mishaps? That'S about all peace out!

Read More