as the situation unfolds, what trump is demonstrating with the border wall funding issue is that the government doesn't operate anything at all like a business, and that he doesn't understand that.

i pointed out that an extended shut down would likely lead to a revolt in the democratic base, which would be unlikely to hold to solidarity on opposition to a border wall in the face of meaningful inconvenience, and the slow understanding that the party's policies on migrants are not in their self-interest. i pointed out that the initial reaction would be to attack trump, but this would slowly lead to apathy all around, which would harm the democrats more than the republicans. trump's best strategy was consequently to hold to his guns until the democrats gave up. if you wanted to compare this to a market transaction, he'd be undercuttting the competition with his superior resources in a more dedicated and ideological base of core supporters.

but, he folded at what seemed like the worst possible moment. now, he's talking about shutting the government down again, which is flatly insane - he just lost the fight, now he wants to do it again? what? he had a clear winning strategy, and threw it away. now, if he follows through with this, he's going to get primaried and lose...

it's taken me some time to clue in, but i think that the reason this isn't making any sense is that he's approaching the situation like a business deal, rather than a government negotiation. this was in some sense obvious, but i guess we all miss the obvious some times, particularly when it's entirely irrational. you would, frankly, expect the point to be corrected by now. i don't remember the reagan administration, but what i've read about it suggests that even the gipper, that old dumbass, had the ability to learn in office. trump's stupidity seems to really be singular...

...and, here we have it: trump thinks the government is just like a business, and that he's carrying out some kind of business negotiation. he's the ceo of the republican party, while pelosi is the ceo of the democratic party. and, he thinks they are both driven by an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders.

it's the last point where the whole thing breaks down as incoherent, and you start to understand what he's doing.

so, rather than wait pelosi out, what trump was initially trying to do was intimidate her. it was some kind of dominance tactic. if they actually were both ceos of corporations, he would be costing her a lot of money by withholding the contract. the temporary re-opening of the government would be intended to remind her shareholders of how much money they're losing, and what they stand to gain by signing the contract. then, taking that away would push the shareholders into pressuring pelosi into making concessions, to prevent them from losing money.

his tactics are anti-social, and in the long-run would no doubt create a reputation that precedes him - donald trump would become a man that you try to avoid doing business with. but, they would probably be effective when applied as necessary, so long as the dominant motive is about profit.

but, nancy pelosi does not have a group of shareholders to pressure her, or at least not literally. what she has are voters that want to elect her - electors in the proletariat. their self-interest is very different; they are not looking to make money by signing a contract, but to keep the government open to access services (and, in some cases, to avoid signing the contract at all). there is no way to apply the model.

opening and closing the government like this is just going to make it clear that the president is responsible for it.

observers are looking at trump and wondering if he's off his rocker. but, this is simply what happens when you let a business person run for office - this is the inevitable consequence of applying business world realities and tactics to political negotiations. he's simply living in a parallel reality.

so, he will no doubt continue to do outlandish things, until this gets resolved, or he gets thrown out. but, try and keep what i'm saying in mind as you try to understand what he's doing - you might find it to be a useful decryption algorithm.

no, you scientifically illiterate idiots.

the polar vortex is neither evidence for nor against global warming, but an isolated event that is occurring independently of the slow increase in global temperatures. it is variation in the climate system. and, it is driven entirely by the sun.

...except to point out that the premise that the media hoopla is based on is actually wrong: the effects of the polar vortex on mid latitudes is not increasing, but decreasing. we're not experiencing colder winters, but warmer ones.

the climate models point out that we should be seeing weaker winters, on average. and, those models are absolutely correct - our winters are getting shorter and less intense. and, this is the consensus view amongst climate scientists: our winters will continue to get shorter and less powerful, over time.

but, again: i'm not arguing with the science. the science agrees with me, or, to be more succinct, i'm simply stating the science.

what i'm arguing with is click bait by the "liberal" media, which is ultimately not helping the movement against the oil industry, by publishing dubious articles that damage their own credibility.

so, to recap. and i'm done with this until next year:

1) the polar vortex is a strictly solar phenomenon that has nothing to do with global warming.
2) our winters at the current solar minima have been less intense than they were in previous solar minimas. that is, the polar vortex is retreating, on the longer scale.
3) the polar vortex is retreating on the longer scale due to global warming - which will lead to shorter, less intense winters.
4) that said, as we are at solar minima, our current cold blast is a consequence of the solar cycle. and, if the sun has an extended minima, this could slow down global warming, with exaggerated effects in the northern hemisphere.
5) the media is pushing a series of strawmen, false dichotomies and red herrings around the topic that are merely serving to confuse the fuck out of people, for clickbait and ideological purity.

you're no doubt horribly confused. that's a shame.

all three of the major parties are nearing rock bottom, here, in terms of historic levels of unpopularity.

the ndp has a narrow path, still.

if they don't take it, this could end up unlike anything we've ever seen, here.

if trudeau thinks he's the most likely recipient of an anti-ford backlash, he's got another thing coming.

the feds might want to take a closer look at the results of the last provincial election. as baffling as doug ford is, he couldn't exist without the liberals being unpopular here, in whatever demographics they're unpopular in. trudeau is very much an extension of the mcguinty-wynne government, and not much of an antidote.

normally, this would be fertile ground for the ndp, but they've evaporated. and, if the ndp can't get themselves in order quickly, ontario is consequently going to be a very serious wild card in october, as the populace struggles to find somewhere to turn to.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/lilley-liberal-mp-says-lets-whack-ontario-premier-doug-ford