Page 39 of 41

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 3:25 pm UTC
by Zohar
Chen wrote:Leaving that completely separate topic for now, consider if someone like Trump came up on the Democrats side. Would you be willing to vote for anti-abortion, anti-LGBT etc republicans because you didn't believe in the President? Even if you did vote against the President, would you also vote against your house members and/or Senators? Because that is the situation you had now on the Republican side. The parties are so diametrically opposed on some issues that it's not choosing party over country but rather choosing against your own values for the more nebulous "country".


Luckily, exactly zero congresspeople have to make that choice. They don't vote for the president's decisions, they vote for laws. And republicans can (and do) vote against laws raised in their own party, including those backed by the republican president.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 3:32 pm UTC
by sardia
Zohar wrote:
Chen wrote:Leaving that completely separate topic for now, consider if someone like Trump came up on the Democrats side. Would you be willing to vote for anti-abortion, anti-LGBT etc republicans because you didn't believe in the President? Even if you did vote against the President, would you also vote against your house members and/or Senators? Because that is the situation you had now on the Republican side. The parties are so diametrically opposed on some issues that it's not choosing party over country but rather choosing against your own values for the more nebulous "country".


Luckily, exactly zero congresspeople have to make that choice. They don't vote for the president's decisions, they vote for laws. And republicans can (and do) vote against laws raised in their own party, including those backed by the republican president.

That's being generous to the Republicans. For example, they also vote on confirmations, and investigations (or lack thereof). The GOP ,save for a few, support Trump bigly. They have stymied, slow pedaled or sided against anything bad for Trump. Let's be clear, it is in their short term interest to do so, but don't give that bullshit about how the Republicans can't control/influence/rebuke Trump.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 3:36 pm UTC
by Zohar
Oh yeah, almost all of them are spineless assholes willing to sacrifice everything for their short-term benefit. But they don't have to, they have the power to keep behaving as conservative, small-government ideologists while not supporting Trump.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 4:59 pm UTC
by Chen
The Great Hippo wrote:If that's your choice, then don't vote. Or vote for a third party candidate. Or, hell, go try to run for office yourself. There is no excuse for supporting Trump.

I'm sorry, but this is actually pretty fucking easy. Nobody was stuck between two hard choices. They supported the ex-reality TV star who's very likely committed a series of sexual assaults and who talked about executing the families of suspected terrorists. Why? Because they thought he might advance their political agenda.


I'm saying there are people taking a big picture look at things here. Can you not fathom the people who supported Trump because they wanted Republican policy to be implemented in spit of being appalled by him? Like filling the courts with young conservatives who will be there for decades? Even if Trump crashes and burns early, he will still have put a new conservative justice on the Supreme Court that will last decades. That alone is a huge win if you want to see conservative values pushed through law.

No, I wouldn't vote for this turdwaffle *even if* he was a Democrat -- and doing otherwise meant giving the next Michael Pence a better shot at the candidacy. I wouldn't vote for Pence, either -- but as horrible as Pence would be, at least he *probably* wouldn't light the country on fire to try and collect the insurance money.


I mean that's fair. Personally I would have a much harder time of it, if the Trump figure was on the liberal side of things. If the President continually did things to enrich himself, colluded with foreign governments and generally said distasteful and despicable things, but in the end abortion remained safe in the law, real work was done towards climate change, LGBT rights remained recognized and were further strengthened and taxation became more progressive, I really would have a hard time saying no to it. Not to mention swinging the Supreme court back liberal for the next long while.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:15 pm UTC
by sardia
Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:35 pm UTC
by Chen
sardia wrote:Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.


The point wasn't precisely Trump but someone else who held detestable views but who's party was doing things you supported.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:45 pm UTC
by Dark567
sardia wrote:Trump would have been terrible for Democrats, probably worse considering how much better the conservative media is at hyping up their base. The only weird thing would be Trump beating Hillary and Bernie. Like why would voters pick Trump over Bernie if they want populist,? And why would they want Trump over Hillary of they want establishment.
Bernie is only kinda a populist... he still appeals very much to the college educated elites etc. Part of populism is talking and acting like the working class, which Trump somehow even though he is rich does very well. Part of populism often involves scapegoating, Trump scapegoats general 'elites'(Media, Politicians, the educated) and foreigners, Bernie is specifically scapegoating the rich. In America, it does not surprise me the former comes across as more populist than the latter.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:57 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
Nobody interested in this?

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

KIEV, Ukraine — A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

[...]

News had just broken the day before in The Washington Post that Russian government hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee, prompting McCarthy to shift the conversation from Russian meddling in Europe to events closer to home.

Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”

Ryan instructed his Republican lieutenants to keep the conversation private, saying: “No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 6:04 pm UTC
by SDK
LaserGuy wrote:Nobody interested in this?

Their defense seems pretty reasonable: it was a joke. Some of the language used surrounding that, and the whole secrecy thing coming from Ryan, means you can question that defense, but it's not obvious that is the case. Kevin McCarthy clearly didn't actually know Putin was paying them, meaning this is not real evidence.

Among all the many other things surrounding Trump, this is not a big deal. If there actually was evidence that he was being paid by Putin, yeah, that would be a big deal.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 6:14 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
LaserGuy wrote:Nobody interested in this?


Consider the alternative story: "Two (former) FBI Directors are currently making serious cases against Trump... one with Special Prosecutor status"... I think your story (while it would be important under normal circumstances) is kinda ignorable.

A lot of shit has gone down in just one week.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:12 am UTC
by sardia
In lighter news, Jason Chaffetz will resign to spend more time with his family. He would not rule out a future run for higher office.
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528989433 ... nd-of-june
The most important consequence of this is that statisticians will get another datapoint to measure the height of the midterm reversal (currently +8 against 2016 average GOP margin). And Democrats will have yet another chance to win the lottery against a heavily red district.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 5:49 pm UTC
by Puppyclaws
I doubt any Democratic candidate could win in Chaffetz's district (which includes Provo). The best that Democrats can hope for would be something like Evan McMullin running for and winning the seat.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:38 pm UTC
by sardia
You don't run only for sure things. You run to test the waters and Calculate the height of the Democratic wave. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it's shaping up to a very typical midterm reversion.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:31 pm UTC
by Diadem
So apparently that meeting where Trump leaked classified information to the Russians was a busy one.

The NYT is now reporting that during this meeting Trump also called Comey a nutjob, and told the Russians he was facing great pressure from Comey, and that his firing had relieved this pressure.
NYT wrote:WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”


I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:07 pm UTC
by Thesh
I'm beginning to think Trump might be a moron.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:10 pm UTC
by Chen
I mean does he not know that these things were being written down? The stenographer had to be in the room right?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:29 pm UTC
by DaBigCheez
Had to double-check the link to make sure it wasn't the Onion.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:55 pm UTC
by Liri
I really wonder what Obama is thinking right now. A large part of him is surely taking it pretty seriously, but I hope he's yucking it up a bit.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:06 pm UTC
by Thesh
Last I heard, Obama was hang gliding. That sounds like exactly what he should be doing.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:47 pm UTC
by sardia
Thesh wrote:Last I heard, Obama was hang gliding. That sounds like exactly what he should be doing.

He's prepping the next generation of Democrats to run for future office. That and making boatloads of money. The former is what Hillary and Biden should be doing instead of trying to get their old asses into the presidency.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:49 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Diadem wrote:I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.
It'll probably depend on how the currently planned story arc ends up resolving...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:48 pm UTC
by Magnanimous
Soupspoon wrote:It'll probably depend on how the currently planned story arc ends up resolving...

In season 4, episode 6 of The Apprentice, Donald Trump invokes this on all of Team Excel for suffering the biggest defeat in the show.

Trump: In this boardroom, we've never had a team lose so badly. You're all fired. All four are fired.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 8:46 am UTC
by Grop
Diadem wrote:I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.


Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 1:05 pm UTC
by ucim
Grop wrote:Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.
...or that it bombs.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 1:16 pm UTC
by Zamfir
Grop wrote:
Diadem wrote:I have to say, the 242nd season of The United States is definitely the best so far. I hope they'll renew the show for another season, though it's hard to see where they can go from here, plot wise.


Let's hope it doesn't end in a big cliffhanger.

What's not to like? Donald Trump is hanging from a cliff, with only his tie preventing a fall into the deep unknown. Can he pull himself up? Does anyone know he's there? Does anyone who knows, care to rescue him? Mike Penxe, Paul Ryan, any of his children? Ambassador Kislyak? Find out after summer!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 1:24 pm UTC
by sardia
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... h-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 2:02 pm UTC
by Liri
It's unfortunate that the Republican senators most likely to get kicked out are the ones most opposed to Trump and willing to compromise.

oh well

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 3:55 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
How has no one posted anything about The Ominously Glowing Orb yet?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 3:58 pm UTC
by Diadem
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:07 pm UTC
by Thesh
Also, consider how the electoral map has changed over the years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... s_by_state

Trump has abandoned much of his base already, and Republicans are alienating anyone with sense. All of their policy so far is looking to be harmful to the economy, so we won't see the spectacular growth Republicans promised. I think it would not be unsurprising to see another strong turn to Democrats in much of the country. The Senate elections with Dem incumbents are heavily in the northeast, who are not as strong of Republican supporters to begin with, and the ones most likely to feel like their concerns were ignored.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:20 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Diadem wrote:There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, […]
I probably should coin some new terms. Post GOP-split, Red States become either Orange States (pro-Trump) or Maroon(ed), maybe?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:21 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?


That's not the issue. The issue is that of the ~33 Senate seats that are up for re-election, 23 of them are currently held by Democrats.

Basically: Democrats have to clean sweep to maintain the status quo. Literally 70% of Senate seats need to go back to the Democrats to just keep things the way they are. We're under circumstances such that we can expect Democrats to actually "clean sweep" in 2018, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here. The path forward is still very tough for Democrats... in the Senate at least.

2020 is a far more realistic time for Democrats to make progress: with 11 Democrats up for reelection and 22 Republicans, the 2020-election will be the best chance for Democrats to actually make progress.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:23 pm UTC
by Dark567
Diadem wrote:Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?
In short, yes.


Diadem wrote:There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?
There is no chance of a clean sweep. Absolutely none.

Diadem wrote:Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.
Do they really? What I see in Europe is a lot more swings between more than 2 parties, often times between more ideological allies(i.e. moving from center right to right or center etc.) to allow for those swings. A swing from 80-20 to 50-50 is pretty unfathomable in the US. Heck, even in Texas which was 50-40 in favor of the GOP seems like it would be very long shot to get to a Democratic senator.

The graphs below kinda explain why it's so sticky in the US:
Spoiler:
US:
PD-Duverger-1.jpg

UK:
PD-Duverger-2.jpg

India:
PD-Duverger-3.jpg

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:30 pm UTC
by Prefanity
Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/
Democrats are looking forward to the house election but are going to be sad in the Senate. There are a bunch of red state Democrats up for office and Senate seats follow presidential margins. That means Democrats will have to wait until 2020 to stop the GOP agenda.

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.


The people who voted for Trump watch Fox and InfoWars, so they're not viewing the scandals the same way we are, which means a large portion of voting Republicans are probably completely unmovable in their voting. However, I'm not certain Democrats are as unmovable, so a move to the right could be possible.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:46 pm UTC
by Thesh
There are three main groups: trumpkins, true believer conservatives, and people that identify as Republicans but don't really follow politics. The former two make up the primary voters, the latter vote in the general elections and make up a sizable chunk of the voters and are at risk of being alienated and either switching sides or sitting it out. We'll know more closer to the end of the year, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems kept most or all of their seats plus flipped Nevada.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 5:52 pm UTC
by sardia
Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-2018-senate-elections-are-looking-bad-for-both-parties/

Are Americans really that unmovable in their voting?

There's a good chance that a year from now Trump will be buried even deeper in scandals, with a GOP in civil war over whether to impeach him, and having achieved absolutely nothing. In such a scenario, is there any reason why the Democrats wouldn't take a clean sweep of the senate seats that are up for election?

Of course if Trump recovers that won't happen. But a situation where Trump gets successfully impeached, or very close to it, and the Republican Party doesn't pay a huge electoral price for it seems utterly absurd to me. Like, Americans are humans right? Surely their voting can't be that different than the rest of the world.

Even in the reddest of red states it's like 80-20 right? So even in such a state a 30 point loss by Republicans - not even half their voters - would do the trick. Over here in Europe such swings happen all the time.

The short answer is yes, Americans are increasingly hardened in their positions. The long answer is maybe. Mid terms elections are currently projecting as good (2016 results + 8 points towards the Democrats). This is based on average special elections data taken after Trump's travel ban but before his obstruction of Justice. The next special elections is May 25. If you keep watching the average, you'll have a heads up on how much the average voter has moved.
For example, Cruz is in a GOP leaning state that is at least 20 points red. Subtract the +8 midterm reversion, and Cruz wins with +12. Now if the midterm reversion goes up to +20 Democrats, then Cruz is thrown out, 50/50 odds. (+-0 Lean)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:12 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
The Great Hippo wrote:
cphite wrote:No. Their silence is simply evidence that they are following proper protocol in regards to an alleged intelligence leak; they aren't speaking publicly about the issue. You are the one who implied that we should expect some kind of public statement from them, and that the lack of said statement, in and of itself, carried some sort of meaning.
We've had plenty of public statements from veteran members of the intelligence community (most of them retired, but still with active contacts) within the past few days regarding this. I've yet to hear a single one talk about the leak that led to us becoming aware of this story. All of them have been talking about the leak itself (Trump).

You, Alex Jones, and Fox News are apparently the only people who care that someone decided to leak this story. People with 20+ years experience in counter-intelligence don't care about this leak -- they care about Trump's leak. Precisely what special knowledge do you possess which makes your opinion more valuable than theirs?

Why should I trust you over the experts? How are you not just another crackpot with a theory?


Your quote is from last week, but I'm responding to it (again) because it seems like a recent news story directly contradicts your assessment from last week.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-c ... 13960.html

Brennan said the press coverage of Trump’s impromptu intelligence reveal was “hyperbolic” and possibly more damaging than anything Trump revealed. “The damage that was done is what was leaked in the aftermath, what was put in the media. The real damage to national security is the leaks.” He suggested, without saying so explicitly, that news accounts revealed more sensitive information than Trump did.


Former CIA Director Brennan, who led the CIA during Obama's tenure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

---------

Now to be fair, I believe you (Hippo) were talking about the Washington Post article, while the New York Times article is what John Brennan (probably) was talking about. The New York Times article had more information than Washington Post. Its hard to say exactly, because these intelligence guys are all vague about things.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:24 pm UTC
by MartianInvader
In looking at 2018, we should probably also keep in mind that Democrats had a very low voter turnout compared to Republicans - if I'm remembering right, Clinton would have won if Democratic turnout for her had matched Obama's. In essence, Republicans were far more energized and excited than Democrats in 2016. It seems pretty likely the situation will be swapped in 2018.

Democrats don't need to change people's minds politically to win big in the midterms - they just need more Democratic voters to show up, and more Republican voters to stay home.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:30 pm UTC
by Dark567
MartianInvader wrote:In looking at 2018, we should probably also keep in mind that Democrats had a very low voter turnout compared to Republicans - if I'm remembering right, Clinton would have won if Democratic turnout for her had matched Obama's. In essence, Republicans were far more energized and excited than Democrats in 2016. It seems pretty likely the situation will be swapped in 2018.

Democrats don't need to change people's minds politically to win big in the midterms - they just need more Democratic voters to show up, and more Republican voters to stay home.
For better or worse in national elections it does seem to be more about turnout than flipping voters(very few US voters flip sides often). Unfortunately, this has been adding(and created by) our extreme partisanship. If winning is just about getting turnout there isn't as much reason to compromise on positions with the other side, instead, you just need to drum up the base for every election.

The Dems should do good in the house due to the turnout, but a lot of the senate seats are just too deep of red.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 7:23 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
Um, don't overlook the fact that many people are rejecting political parties altogether. Registered voters in California as of February 10, 2017, by political party (bolding mine):

Democratic: 8,700,440 (44.8%)
Republican: 5,027,714 (25.9%)
No Party Preference: 4,762,212 (24.5%)
Other: 942,243 (4.9%)


Source: California Secretary of State's Odd-Year Report of Voter Registration
(The quoted data is found on the first page of this section, where you can see how that breakdown has changed over the past ten years; the full table of contents for the report is here.)