Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:From what I understand a substantial chunk, possibly a majority of the newly elected senators and representatives are bat-shit insane, and are planning to spend the next 2 years trying to repeal the AHA and impeach President Obama. This is likely to mean no governing goes on for the next 2 years anyway.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
quote:Plus he was the first Biden in a thousand generations of Bidens to go to university!
Biden is very, very smart but he's a loose cannon, he doesn't stick to the script. But he's more of a politician than Obama is and I think he knows DC well enough to get stuff done. I'd vote for him or Hilary no problem.
quote:There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
quote:With the bunch who were just elected or re-elected, I'm quite happy to have them bounding around the country campaigning -- they'll do less harm that way than if they were causing trouble in Washington.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
quote:The results in the Senate races aren't all that telling. It's amazing the Democrats still held Senate seats in South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Louisiana in the first place. I know why they still held seats in Louisiana and West Virginia. I've got an inkling about South Dakota. Montana? I got nothing. In any event, the Republicans were supposed to win those Senate seats. The Republican performance in the Southeast might be a cause for alarm but not much. Only one Senate race should give the GOP hope for 2016 and that's Iowa. More on that below.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate the differences between the Presidential race, and the Senate and House races. Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race. The House is indeed gerrymandered. And the two-Senators per State structure works differently to the Electoral College in dealing with overall votes and popularity.
The real question is, will that built in advantage be enough? Can the Democrats recover/maintain sufficient support to have a good chance of winning in 2016? I don't think they can this time; unless the GOP helps them out e.g. by mobilising the ethnic minorities against themselves. (That can't be ruled out, of course.) Turn out looks likely to be a key factor.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for the next 538 blog on the topic.
quote:Normally, the disadvantage democrats have in terms of low turnout during the Midterms also diminishes with the Presidental elections.
Barnabas62: Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race.
quote:I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
quote:Where I live, I see political TV ads for 2 states. All the Republicans ran anti-Obama campaigns by tying their opponents' voting records to support for Obama -- and his poll numbers are in the mid-40s. As I see it, the Republicans have successfully trashed Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a foreigner and one who does not really understand how US politics work, four things strike me as really surprising.
. . .
2. How much so many people seem to be driven by hatred towards Barak Obama. I know the rules don't allow him to stand again. So this shouldn't really be relevant anyway. From abroad, perhaps he's not that scintillating but it doesn't look as though he's been doing too bad a job. He's a lot better than his predecessor, and he at least tried to do something about the absence of a proper health service. Why this acrimony? To a foreigner he actually looks quite a good president.
quote:The poor and middle class start Christmas shopping in June or earlier. It's the only way most of us can scrape a modest Christmas together, by buying one gift at a time over many months.
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. How early this speculation is starting. This election is two years away. It's as though one starts thinking about Christmas in June.
quote:If that's what it takes to get progressives through the night...
originally posted by Porridge:
Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
quote:Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
quote:If she runs, I will have a devil of a time choosing between Warren & Clinton. Warren just might win the day for me. In many ways she seems much like Obama did in '08-- a breath of fresh air, someone who reminds us of why we became Dems in the first place. Someone who has the guts and the tenacity to enact real change that matters.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
quote:(shrugs). Well, I'm not Cherokee so ymmv. But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
Apparently the Cherokees are quite angry about it. Her claim was based mostly on family lore; when this was questioned, instead of examining the question and then saying 'Oops!, she dug in her heels.
quote:I doubt I can answer your questions with any pronouncements that cover all that landscape. I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
quote:Thank God.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
They were wrong.
quote:What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Canadian media report today that $4 billion was spent on this election of your's (Maclean's, CBC), with the big spenders and advertisers are such wonderful people as the Koch brothers who aired 44,000 ads, one in ten of the total ads aired, spending $300 million. Tom Steyer was reported as spending $73 million mostly against pro-pipeline candidates.
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
quote:I do agree Hillary has earned it and has the ability and experience. But she doesn't inspire us the way Obama did and I believe Warren could. Warren has less experience but what she has is stellar. And she is simply fearless. She'll go toe-to-toe with the Koch bros or the rest of that crowd.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hillary--possibly with Elizabeth Warren for VP.
In 2008, I voted for H in the primaries. I thought both she and Obama needed a lot more experience, but they were who we had. Interestingly, any of the candidates in the fall election would've broken a glass ceiling of some sort.
For once in my life, I got to vote for a woman for president. That means a *lot* to me. I think H has earned it, this time. She was a good secty. of state, and I think she's finally found herself. She knows DC and the White House from the inside. I think she'd do a good job.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Warren. I did see her in a great interview with David Letterman. She grew up poor, still remembers it, and doesn't want anyone else to go through that.
If E and H run against each other, they'll split the Dem. vote. If they run as a team, they might just sweep the election.
quote:Pretending that these are two separate issues misses the point. The reason lobbyists have the access they do is because of the money spent on campaigns by their corporate masters.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
quote:This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
quote:I don't see where Beeswax Altar is suggesting any such thing. He's simply pointing out that that is not a new problem. The rampant "dark money" opened up by Citizen's United, however, is-- and seems to have had a significant impact on the outcome of the elections. That's cause for concern. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about lobbyists as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
quote:If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
What Hebrew or Greek word does your Bible translate government provided health insurance?
quote:Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
quote:I would bet on Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.
quote:The problem is that in her applications to Penn and Harvard she checked the box that said she was Native American. In the site I linked to earlier, there is these paragraphs.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
quote:In other words, she gained advantages by falsely claiming to be Native American. I think she honestly believed her family stories; what bothers me is that when she was offered clear proof that these stories were not true, she kept insisting they were.
The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.
quote:My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
quote:Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
quote:That sounds like the P J O'Rourke end of the GOP (though I have heard that even he may be a Democrat nowadays).
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Also worth pointing out that while we had a swing to the right for the Senate, we also had three states (well two and DC) legalize recreational marijuana.
Just a reminder that the US is a large and very diverse country when it comes to politics.
quote:Is there an American edition of Who Do You Think You Are? It's one of the things about the show that's quite interesting, how the stories handed down in families often to turn out to be true, but also that some of them are partly true but a little garbled (such as a couple of different facts getting mashed together).
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
*The Cherokee genealogists had very extensive records.
Moo
quote:Actually, the John McCain isn't a natural born citizen card was already in the works because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone. Nobody would have claimed McCain was a Muslim because McCains father isn't a Muslim and his school records from Indonesia don't list him as being a Muslim. Chances are very good another conspiracy theory about John McCain would have arisen in due time. Conspiracy theorists always come up with something to hang on the president.
originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:Here is some evidence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
quote:Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Here is some evidence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
Even if her family story were true, she is only 1/32 Cherokee. This should not qualify her for affirmative action. I would have no problem with her claiming to be Cherokee if she had not claimed special benefits.
Moo
quote:I don't understand this.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
quote:I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is some evidence. ...
quote:Nope, it was 5-4.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
--Tom Clune
quote:Yes, that is the way the conspiracy runs. Jon Stewart and many others have had a field day just basically running thru the implications of the conspiracy theory-- which not only involves his father plotting this long, involved 48 year plot and then leaving the scene, but also involves the knowing cooperation of a huge web of government officials from the governor of Hawaii on down. The fact that there are, in fact, people who actually believe this is... well, let's just say, remarkable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb] Going back to Barak Obama, am I right that the accusation by the conspiracy theorists isn't that he is barred because Hawaii isn't really in the US - even though the rest of us all think it is - but that he wasn't really born there at all and the records have been faked? Presumably this was by someone who had a strange foreknowledge that in 48 years time this small baby was going to run for president.
quote:No official bar, just the usual "electability" questions in a deeply "religious" (in some sense) nation.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the US is a secular state, why would being a Moslem - if he were one which it seems very clear to everyone else that he isn't - bar one from being president?
quote:"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya.
quote:I assume that's what it means, rather than that it bars those born by caesarian section, i.e. like Macduff "from his mother’s womb untimely ripped."
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
I've wondered why this was never brought up when Mitt's dad was trying to get the nomination. (He was born in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.)
quote:I am not a fan of Barack Obama (not a fan of any politicos, actually) but this is something I really don't get - the so-called "Birther" position.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya. Being a Muslim wouldn't disqualify Barack Obama or anybody else from serving as president. Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
quote:I believe he was born in the Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory at the time.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
quote:The issue WAS raised about John McCain. You seem to be under the impression that John McCain and his followers made a big deal about Obama's birthplace. John McCain did not. The people who did weren't and aren't big fans of John McCain either. The highest profile person to make an issue of this was Donald Trump who frequently makes a big deal about possibly running for president in order to gin up interest in The Apprentice. Obama's father was from Kenya. Why claim Obama was born in Canada or Belgium?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
The 'birtherism' nuttiness is merely a thin veil for racism. Which is why it is important for the fantasy birth place to be Kenya. It would never do for the late Mr. Obama to have his future-president son in, say, Belgium or Canada.
quote:Not to the degree it was about Obama - not even close.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The issue WAS raised about John McCain.
quote:The view from outside was that it was all about race and racism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's because Obama won the election and McCain did not.
quote:Seconded. The tclune cutting edge at work. Nice to see you again, Tom.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:And Condi should stick with that--exclusively.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.
quote:I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:Except a small number of Hawaiians, but for entirely different motives!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
quote:Plug "McCain's citizenship questioned" into a search engine. Or read the Snopes.com article.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
quote:That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
quote:Here are three snippets from this site which I linked to earlier.
And like Lamb Chopped, I haven't seen anything in my research this evening that demonstrates Warren claimed special benefits. As far as I can see, she made the claim after being employed, not before, and in fact it's her failure to claim any special benefit while a student that has people saying she's been inconsistent.
quote:As I said before, I have no problem with Warren honestly believing that she had Cherokee ancestry and listing it on applications, etc. My problem is that she refused to discuss the matter with the Cherokee genealogists and tribal leaders. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, even if you benefit from it, and another to refuse to consider any evidence that it was a mistake.
The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.
{snip}
Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report. The program did not report a Native American woman for 1993 through 1995, during which time Warren was back at Penn — she had spurned Harvard’s initial offer of a tenured position, according to a Globe report.
quote:As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
quote:If by mentioned, you mean filing a federal lawsuit challenging his eligibility then yes it's been mentioned.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:My point is on her mother's side she has 2 grandparents, 4 great-grandparents, 8 great-great-grandparents and 16 great-great-great-grandparents. Are we even looking at the right ones here? Because we sure as heck aren't looking at a COMPLETE list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
quote:Yes. The 4 were a small sign of *some* sanity on the court. The 5 should've been fired--it wasn't their decision to make.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Nope, it was 5-4.
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:No. That is evidence that a person or persons unknown for some reason known to them has sufficient personal dislike of Mrs Warren to set up a blogsite to express that dislike. The website is designed simply so as to encourage other people to dislike her too.
Originally posted by Moo:
As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
quote:Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.
Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
quote:But it doesn't work this way. The census forms ask YOU to identify what you are, and until very recently, they forced you to pick a single category. Thus most of my ancestors picked "white" (including those who were 50% Cherokee, no doubt) because you had only two choices--and one was considerably more socially acceptable than the other.
Originally posted by Moo:
If her mother had any Cherokee ancestry, then Elizabeth has only half as much. If her mother did not have enough Indian ancestry to list it on a census form, Elizabeth, with only half as much, should not have listed it on any application.
I read a lot more about this two years ago when the subject first came up. I don't remember what all the websites were, but I read Warren's side as well as the Cherokees. The Cherokees were far more convincing, and I hold it very much against Warren that she refused to talk to them.
Moo
quote:The difference between you and Elizabeth Warren is that she listed herself as Native American, and thereby made herself a more desirable university hire.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't mind the legal qualifications for federal aid, etc. That's reasonable, since some test must exist.
{snip}
I'm not claiming aid. I wouldn't take it if it were offered.
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doesn't mean you won't get a conservative Republican in the Oval Office. Just that he or she will need to be a smart conservative Republican.
quote:I'll give you political experience, but Clinton is 67 and Warren is 65.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Given the choice between her and Elizabeth Warren, I'd hope that registered dems would choose experience and political savvy over youth and energetic speeches this time around.
quote:Bridgegate is too much of a liability for Chris Christie. Ted Cruz is scum. Jeb Bush is a has been and missed his opportunity to be president when he lost the 1994 governors election to Lawton Chiles and George W. Bush beat Ann Richards. Rick Perry is an idiot. Mitt Romney is a two time loser. Rick Santorum hasn't held elected office in years. That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP. My money would be on Rand Paul. I stopped taking Rubio seriously after the stupid comment about Republicans not needing any new ideas because they had an idea called America and it still worked. Of the Republicans beloved by the Tea Party, Mike Lee would be my choice. However, 2016 would not be the year to run a senator for president. Republicans have to run one of their governors.
originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's early to tell for the GOP, but I suspect they'll do what they did in 2012 and 2008 and nominate Chris Christie. He's moderate to quasi liberal now (well, at least he acknowledges man-made global warming) and I'm sure he can gin up enough conservative rhetoric to convince the right-er leaning members of his party that he's both electable and actually a conservative.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:You might be right, and Rubio's ethnic background would work to his advantage in the general election.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP.
quote:Just because they voted for her doesn't mean they love her. More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton. I believe somebody like Amy Klobuchar would do better in the general election.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
quote:Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
quote:What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
quote:Indeed. But my sense is Beeswax Altar is right. I've always been a huge Clinton fan. While I"m not prepared to vote for someone just because I've been waiting for a woman president (Prez. Palin, anyone?) I have been waiting to vote for her. But I would be one who find more to be excited about, more to be optimistic about Warren than Clinton. She may be newer to the national stage, but she has a good, strong, history of public service and an excellent record. "Cherokeegate" seems like small potatoes compared to the issues that dog Clinton. I think she's electable. More than that, I think she would do enormous good as President.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
quote:It's interesting that your suggested to key to GOP success involves passing a large chunk of the Democratic agenda that the GOP has always opposed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them.
quote:That's a hard sell when the most recent Republican presidential candidate essentially called those using the EITC a bunch of lazy, shiftless moochers who could never be convinced to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives". Most past Republican "support" for the EITC was as a bargaining chip to leverage budget cuts elsewhere.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republicans have supported raising the EITC in the past.
quote:That observation seems to be the opposite of reality.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Every time the Republicans win an election, the supposedly impartial talking heads tell them the voters want them to compromise and work with the Democrats. When Democrats win, it's a mandate for change.
quote:That strikes me as a very good question. Is there anyone who's actually going to have a vote in this election who is prepared to have a go at answering it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
quote:That was actually a 5-4 decision.
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE] My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
quote:I'm not sure it's possible for our electoral system to produce a *good* president.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president?
quote:Around here I run into more Hillary haters than lovers. And I mean haters. Some of them nice liberal feminist men who just have some kind of personal thing against her.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men.
quote:It's more important to me to have a good president. I'll likely vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but I kind-of hope she isn't. I don't think her winning the presidency would be the feminist victory that others seem to think it would be. And I'd like to stop fighting Vietnam in our public discourse at some point.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
quote:I think this is a pretty key point. We've seen what happens with Romney, for example, when a candidate swings out to one side to win the nomination then tries to swing back to the middle for the presidential election, which is where you need to be (Tea Party supporters notwithstanding).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
-she might be more moderate than either her progressive challenger or Republican opponent
quote:Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
quote:Yep, hence the clown car reference. He has zero chance; why bother? The Moral Majority hasn't quite taken on board the notion that (a) they're no longer a majority, if they ever were, and (b) given some of their more prominent figures, they don't look especially moral to That Other Majority.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
Another conservative to split the tea party vote and nominate a moderate in the primary.
quote:Maybe there will be more contenders for the Democratic nomination than people think.
Former Virginia senator Jim Webb on Wednesday evening announced that he is launching an exploratory committee to consider running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
"Over the past few months thousands of concerned Americans from across the political spectrum have urged me to run for president," he said in a video released on YouTube Wednesday. "I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016. I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries."
<snip>
The announcement came as a surprise to political watchers. Webb, who had said previously that he was considering a presidential run, is the first potential Democratic candidate to launch an exploratory committee. It is unclear if his announcement will precipitate other Democratic exploratory committees in the near future.
quote:My first paying job was to digitize the 1851 and 1861 census returns for Augusta Township in Canada West (now Ontario) and it was fascinating. The form asked for place of birth and religion and the census taker usually put ethnicity for place of birth and one could not count on what they might inscribe. We encountered families where one generation would be counted as "coloured" and the children not. Other families were counted as "Indian" but not everyone in the household. We wondered if this meant that one parent was First Nations and the other not, but there was one case where two children were annotated as twins, one Indian, and the other not! One household featured a father with a well-known local Mohawk family name marked as "scotch" and his Pennsylvania Dutch Loyalist-named wife as "half-breed."
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.
Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
quote:A good friend has some Cherokee blood - a great grandmother she knew while growing up I think - but has always been recorded as "white". (This might be related to having a family name of Custer.) Certainly the record keeping on such matters can be quite spotty, especially for those of mixed race born out of wedlock.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In other words, do not rely solely on the documents as sometimes family tradition can make more sense...
quote:Speaking of which, Scott Walker is much loved by conservative commentators as a very Reagan-esq possibility for 2016. Any thoughts on that? He got some bad press a while back for how he handled the teachers unions in Wisconsin, but he's been able to turn their budget around from a significant deficit into a noteworthy surplus.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For example He dismisses Wisconsin reelection of the Governor as irrelevant.
quote:This is a telling quote from that article.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I came across this entry at the "GOPlifer" blog at the Houston Chronicle website. The basic gist is that unfavorable demographic and electoral trends prevent any Republican candidate from realistically obtaining the White House in 2016.
From my perspective, I think Chris Ladd is reading too much into the mid-term results. It's almost impossible to project mid-term results into presidential year turnout. For example, Mitt Romney carried West Virginia by a margin of 26.8 percentage points in 2012, yet we're supposed to believe (according to Mr. Ladd's map) that the state is up for grabs in 2016 because of close mid-term results this year? Or that Nevada, which Obama carried by a much slimmer margin of 6.7 percentage points in 2012, is completely out of reach for the GOP in 2016? I don't think the American electorate has shifted that far in two years.
quote:Earlier in the thread I was thinking that the GOP would surely find a candidate whose primary aim was to stop "kissing off" the votes of ethnic minority groups. I think it is probably true that the GOP cannot win unless and until they repent of that "kissing off". That requires policy shifts and modifications which the GOP heartland might initially hard to swallow at best, anathema at worst.
Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.
quote:To me, this sounds like she has a good chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate.
RuthW: She didn't do a great job at HP, and she was forced out of the job.
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
quote:I doubt they will be minority by 2016. The key parts of the legislation only came into effect this year. Yet already the tide is shifting as more and more middle- and low-income Americans are discovering that it is far from the Big Bad Wolf of Government Tyranny they've been led to expect. If AFA is able to continue w/o significant GOP dismantling (a big if, sadly) by 2016 I expect it will be part of the comfortable middle-class safety net that is considered politically off-limits. The big question will not be whether or not people like AFA-- it will be whether or not GOP will be able to successfully induce collective amnesia to forget the lies they spent 6 years weaving (again, sadly, they've proven to be quite adept at this sort of smoke-and-mirrors).
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I suspect the supporters of Obamacare, though a minority, are more likely to allow its defence to influence their vote than critical Democrats to desert.
quote:I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:My first cynical thought is that the DNC expects the next President to be Republican, and is running Hilary as this go-round's Dukakis.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Democrats are determined to give Hillary Clinton her opportunity to run for president in a general election. Few people of any political persuasion are in love with her. I don't get it. Democrats should nominate Amy Klobuchar. She has all the same policy positions as Clinton and she's likeable.
quote:Yes, they're pro BIG business, though they like to talk as if they're in favor of small business, too.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
quote:Huh. I thought that was a plank in the Republican platform.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So unless they nominate her for wrecking a worker-friendly culture...which is not out of the question...
quote:Isn't this how Rick Perry kicked off his presidential bid in 2012, with a supposedly non-political prayer rally? Of all the Republican efforts in 2012 that seems like the the one future candidates should try to avoid emulating. It was poorly organized, the candidate was ill-prepared for public appearances, and . . . there was a third thing but I forget what it was.
Next month, Gov. Bobby Jindal is bringing a mass prayer event to LSU's campus sponsored by a conservative Christian group that has espoused controversial views on a number of issues, including the causes of Hurricane Katrina.
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:And let's not forget Benjamin and William Henry Harrison.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:Or drove better.
Originally posted by Porridge:
We could have added the Kennedys if only they didn't keep getting assassinated.
quote:There has been only one presidential election without a Bush or a Clinton since 1976. That's 38 years.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:C) the Citizens United decision, which has given a whole new meaning to the saying "money talks."
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The only reasons the Republicans are doing well in Congress is
A) gerrymandering of districts in the House
B) standard shift away from party of the incumbent president in the Senate
quote:This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.) and an ability to make broad sweeping statements that can't offend anybody (for example, Muslims/Jews/extreme patriots/other Christian groups, which means avoiding a lot of potholes, most notably all but the most glancing of references to Jesus). So no praying in Jesus' name or mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you, which includes your private life (which won't be private, of course). But you can quote him as a great human teacher all you want, and it will add to your moral cred (don't ever come out and say that, but do act from that perspective and you'll be all right).
quote:Well, citing John Quincy is a good way to make me uncomfortable with American dynasties. He was an asshat.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:But it's only two months until the Iowa State Fair, where candidates will be evaluated on whether or not they can eat a corn dog in a dignified manner. I truly cannot think of a better way to evaluate leadership ability.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The election is not for more than a year!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
quote:But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Liberty is affiliated with a group of 500+ churches called Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia. These churches separated from the 14,000+ church Baptist General Association of Virginia. While the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia are considered a state convention by the SBC, Liberty is not affiliated with the SBC.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Exactly. For the purposes of this discussion, Southern Baptist and non-denominational (i.e. independent) evangelical are as mainstream as it gets, and the gold standard for GOP candidates. Roman Catholic used to be a problem for US presidential candidates (see JFK) but now that we (evangelicals) have joined up with them to bully gays and feminists, we've decided they're "mainstream" Christian as well-- at least for voting purposes. Mormon (see Romney) is still a bit on the edge, but likely to also become an acceptable stances for GOP presidential material, as long as they don't cave on the aforementioned dead horse issues.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
As for "denomination," I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have no problem at all with the Southern Baptist Convention being called a denomination. But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
quote:As noted before, the Catholic Church most notably fails LC's "no teaching or preaching" standard. They're very enthusiastic about both.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:No, I don't see why the equivalence was noted.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
- dull (optional)
- not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
- don't have an "active" reputation
- make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
- never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
- never pray in Jesus' name
- never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
- only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"
These characteristics don't make me think of Southern Baptists generally or any of the various presidential candidates claiming to be Southern Baptists specifically. They do sound s lot like the standard criticisms white American evangelicals have been leveling against mainline Protestant churches for the past several decades, ever since they decided that "evangelical" and "mainline Protestant" were mutually exclusive categories. You can see why the equivalence was noted.
quote:With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
quote:It makes a significant difference when you frame your entire analysis by saying:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
quote:It makes a difference because the analysis is based on a faulty premise. Contrary to your premise, LC did not define the characteristics of a mainstream denomination in the context of US presidential politics. She described the religious characteristics of a candidate likely to be successful in a presidential race, not characteristics of denominations and not characteristics of all who announce their candidacy.
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics.
quote:The term "mainline" is often misused and often used interchangeably with the even vaguer term "mainstream." What would be considered "mainstream" (or "normal") Christianity would vary greatly depending on one's own pov and the geographical region one is in. In the American South, Southern Baptist would be about as "mainstream" as it gets. In the midwestern Bible belt, it might be Southern Baptist, it might be Reformed or Lutheran, but probably not Catholic. Here in California what's considered "mainstream" would break down even further, depending on whether you're in L.A county, Orange County, northern Calif, or the San Joaquin Valley. And of course, in Utah Mormon is mainstream, but not so almost anywhere else. Again, it's a vague term with a lot of variation in usage.
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?.
quote:The RCC and the SBC are both mainstream but not mainline. Mainline and mainstream aren't synonyms. The "Mainline" in "Mainline Protestant" refers to the Philadelphia Mainline. The Philadelphia Mainline does not represent mainstream America. The average American wishes that we could be so lucky.
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it. I doubt either, that the CofS would want to have links with a Presbyterian church if it really met the Crœsos test.
There are plenty of people in the CofE who would pass the Crœsos test, but we don't all.
quote:I can't take full credit for the tick list. All the items were originally proposed by Lamb Chopped, as well as their applicability to American presidential politics.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it.
quote:How do you figure that?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:That would be awesome...for the Democrats. Rubio is very unpopular with Hispanic/Latinos and since approximately 50,000 Hispanic/ Latinos turn 18 and become eligible to vote each month, in states with large numbers of electoral college votes, that doesn't bode well.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:How do you figure that?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:To be fair, Voldemort has a longer track record than most of the GOP field.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Voldemort is polling better.
quote:That's true in the red states that have managed to block much of the implementation of Obamacare (refusing to set up their own state exchanges, not taking advantage of the federal $$ to expand Medicare). Conservatives in those states do continue to loathe/fear Obamacare precisely because they have no real experience of it-- they only know the boogieman that GOP has painted it to be and the scapegoat the insurers have made of it ("we're raising your rates-- but it's not our fault, really! It's not that we're greedy shameless pigs, it's because Obamacare made me!").
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.
quote:Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
quote:I thought we were talking about the general.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the thing. The potential Supreme Court ruling only affects 6 million people in the 37 red states. 6 million seems like a large number but it is stretched out over 37 states. How many of those 6 million people were ever going to vote Republican in the first place? Of the ones who were going to vote Republican, how many of them only purchased insurance to avoid the fines? Of those who were potential Republican voters who like Obamacare, how many of them are voting strictly on that issue? How many of them will vote in the primary? The backlash against candidates who oppose Obamacare in the Republican primary will be negligible. What there is will be more than offset by Republican voters delighted with Supreme Court decision.
quote:Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries. I don't even know which party's primary I will be voting in or if I will either bother. We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
quote:As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
quote:I covet your optimism.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
certainly the case.
Either way, the man-child will be replaced. That will be great whether it's Hillary or any of the (r)s.
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
quote:Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
quote:Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
quote:Agreed-- that (all of it) was my point.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
Now, many in the Republican Pary believe they are to the right of the American people on social issues and to that end have all but thrown social conservatives under the bus. Unfortunately, social conservatives make up over a 1/3 of the GOP vote. Hard to believe their votes could be replaced by all the social liberal hawks who believe the rich are getting a raw deal.
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:That's OK. I intend to vote for Elizabeth Warren even though she insists she's not running...
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Ben Domench wrote the same article over at the federalist. He represents the libertarian lite wing of the Republican Party that believes post 2008 a majority of Americans want to give banks and big business more power while at the same time virtually eliminating the safety net. John Kasich may be running for vice president and that's why I put him second. Frankly, I don't understand the problem. Both articles appear to be saying, "What's with all you RINOs wanting to nominate a competent pragmatist with years of experience in both state and federal government?"
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:Brrrr.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
quote:It's anybody's guess how much this will matter to a public that knows damn-all about US (or any other) history, probably never heard of Pickett's Charge, and doesn't read except in 140-character bits.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Jeb Bush has unveiled his new primary campaign strategy: sending waves of his followers on a hopeless charge against entrenched artillery. Casualties are expected to top out at no more than 50% overall. Seriously though, if you're going to make an historical reference you should at least be familiar with the events you're referring to and how it turned out for the participants.
Then again, maybe it's just the Bush family's natural foot-in-mouth speaking style coming out.
quote:To be fair, Pickett's Charge was being referenced by "one Bush ally", not Bush himself. Of course, one of the most important things presidential campaigns do is control the message they send out. If someone's going to be speaking to the New York Times about your campaign, the phrase "Pickett's Charge" should never cross the metaphorical Emmitsburg Road of their lips.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I find telling is, successful or not, the campaign Jeb is referencing is a famous Confederate Army action.
quote:But what, exactly, is the President "in charge" of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
If I owned an MLB team and I was picking a manager, I'd be more interested in your managerial experience then what's on the back of your card. Two different jobs.
quote:I believe a governor who has experience dealing with a state legislature has a leg up on someone who has just been a congressman or senator. That seems to usually be the judgement of the nation as a whole during my lifetime with just Kennedy and Obama being elected from the senate.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Being able to deal with Congress is therefore a pretty vital component of the job. I therefore query whether having been "in charge" of something is actually the best indicator.
quote:I'm only familiar with the TV series. But IIRC Stillson was the seriously-disturbed politician, whose life kept intertwining with Johnny's?
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:While I prefer Republicans to Democrats and a punch in the stomach to a kick in the nads, I also prefer governors to senators. I'm also hinky about folks who hold to a theology you describe, messing with other people and their stuff.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*
quote:Here's some polling analysis of why Mr. Trump is a terrible candidate.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
quote:The included graph is also amusing.
[P]opularity is performance in politics, and Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle.¹ Buchanan, of course, ended up running as an independent.
-----
¹For each candidate, I averaged the three most recent polls in the first half of the year before the primaries. But for some candidates, only one or two polls were available.
quote:Question from a foreigner who doesn't really have the measure of US politics. Is Donald Trump well regarded and widely seen either in the US or in a significant part of US public opinion, as presidential material?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
quote:Yes, we have those too. We've even got a whole party of them. They got quite a lot of votes, but only got one seat in the recent election.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... The reason he is to be feared is because he is a spoiler. He may, from pure nuttiness, draw support and money away from more viable candidates. ...
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Are you being serious or sarcastic, please? Thanks.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:It was a well known Italian who had sprung to my mind.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind. ...
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:That's what they *want* you to think.
Enoch: A crackpot then.
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
quote:Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:I'd say that is what appeared to be true to the author at the time he wrote it. I don't really disagree with him, though.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:We aren't doing that already?
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
quote:To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
quote:Minnesota
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
quote:Hard to say. The 9/11 poll referenced was conducted in 2007, and there's always the question of wording. An ambiguously worded question could lump together people who believe the Twin Towers were brought down by a secretly arranged controlled detonation and those who knew of the existence of the "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo as those who "believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks". There doesn't seem to be a lot of more recent polling on the subject. Those that do exist mostly indicate Rasmussen's results were an outlier.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that article really true?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
quote:Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:The question is whether he knew and Howard Dean played some with the idea. And the article doesn't show an exactly equal crackpottery but, for the two questions asked, more crackpottery amongst the democrats.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, the main point of such articles is to create a false equivalency, which mostly serves to shut down any kind of thoughtful analysis (both sides are exactly equal in crackpottery) and to give the reader a sense of his or her own moral/intellectual superiority over all those fools. I'm pretty sure that no Democratic presidential candidate has suggested George W. Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks.
quote:I don't see him making to the financial disclosure deadline.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Huh. Guess our Quaker friends were right: there is something of God in everyone. Even The Donald.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:You really mean that?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that he gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand. So it's not that he doesn't care about human beings as a whole; he simply doesn't care about Americans.
quote:What's interesting is that similar criticisms could be leveled against other Republican contenders. For example, it could just as easily be argued that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (to pick two candidates at not-quite-random) are "running" in order to burnish their conservative standing, thus raising their speaking fees on the lecture circuit and their salaries at their Fox "News" sinecures. Is it just that Trump doesn't have a background in politics that requires people to play along and pretend that self promotion is political principle?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that [Trump] gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand.
quote:Interesting that his charity is sick kids-- not poor kids. Not that I mind a charity that helps sick kids, of course. But my biggest gripe with The Donald is his revisionistic "self-made millionaire"/ "poverty is a result of your own lazy bad choices" schtick. If he had to actually get involved with helping poor kids he might end up accidentally meeting one and having his whole worldview/ self-image challenged.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other . . . .
quote:I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
quote:That maths only works if one accepts that the foot-soldier members of the two parties are statistically seriously battier than the rest of the population. Cynically one might sometimes think that, but it would be a bit depressing if it were really true that you have to be an above average nutter to join a serious (not a fringe, note) political party.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
quote:You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
quote:yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
quote:It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:Though both in the US and UK. whoever owns the press can aim to deliberately destroy a strong candidate and leave weaker ones, or ones who will have a less broad appeal. Has it been done? I would guess so.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
quote:I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
quote:yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
quote:It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:Yes, it can be if let it get to you.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
quote:It does have some uses. For example, my mother was laid up with dementia for several years. I'd check to make sure someone else didn't vote in her place. A good friend of mine was helped by the local democrat party boss way back in the 80s. They loaded up several buses with loyalists and gave them the name and address to use as they got off the bus at each of the precinct stations they voted in. I would check my mother's name, and still check for people who I KNOW didn't vote, to make sure they are not recorded as having voted. What I could really do about it beyond b&m, though, I don't know.
I've never heard it even argued that it should be anyone else's business in a country where voting is not compulsory, to be entitled to know whether you voted or not.
quote:Corruption is fine if it is your guys doing it. One of our elders tells me that when he was much younger that young lady teachers would come to his county north of mine and would stay in homes of families paid by the county to keep them. Student teachers, I think it was, or whatever you call a college student being put in a classroom for a semester for training purposes. Anyway, he was there when one young teacher was told she had to leave one house and go stay at another because where she was originally put had the same last name of a loyal democrat family but are really republicans. Republicans were not allowed.
Most of us would be very sensitive of any suggestion that local authorities should decide who to employ depending on how they voted. The suspicion does exist, particularly of some authorities, but it is regarded as one of the most obvious markers of corruption.
quote:State and local pay for them here who pays in NC
We don't have primaries here. There've been arguments for them, but I hope we never do. I can't see the point of them or where they fit into the system. But surely, if you have them the parties are responsible for running and paying for them, not the government.
quote:Unaffiliated means you're registered to vote and that's it. Folks can read whatever meaning they want into that. I started out Democrat like my folks were when I first registered in 1977. Republican for about 1980 to maybe early 1990s, or so. Libertarian for a wee bit. Finally unaffiliated when it became an available choice. I would at least like to think that it means that I am contacted less by political campaigns.
What is the difference between 'Libertarian' and 'Unaffiliated'? Unaffiliated translates to me as 'undecided' or 'none of your business', but presumably that excludes you from both primaries.
quote:It can be that as long as you aren't messing with other people or their stuff. [url=
But Libertarian sounds like sex drugs and rock and roll.
quote:I've been trying to stay away from the press and the news since my major depressive bout in the fall of 2011 with maybe the exception of sports and weather.
The press is a different issue altogether, but at least nobody is obliged to take any notice of what they say. I don't. Do you?
quote:Even if he wasn't able to do anything about it, it would make enduring it that much easier.
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:It does, as do rules about whether one affiliates with a specific party when one registers to vote.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
quote:...especially if the comedian doesn't want to give even weirder ideas to the candidates!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.
I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
quote:Again, Minnesota leads the way. Well, in the Senate anyway...
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:BURN.
When another follower asked her to choose between Trump and fellow Republican Ted Cruz, her response was just as frank: "That's like saying 'would you rather have a Migraine or Throw Up.'"
quote:Unless he is the one being mocked. Then that is a different story.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
quote:Our current one certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The only good thing if Jeb Bush wins is that we'd have a Latina first lady. AFAIK, they've all been white.
quote:Not sure about that. Trump seems to have surged in the polls of likely Republican primary voters since he let his nativist freak flag fly. Whatever the rest of the country thinks of him, he's winning over the folks who matter for picking the Republican nominee. Like any successful strategy, I expect there to be imitators.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think Trump has just about guaranteed that a Latino will get the Republican nomination...unless party's brass are so anti-Latino that they can't see that it might get them a ton of Latino votes.
quote:Although among the type of voters Trump seems to be appealing to it doesn't matter if you're from Cuba or Guatemala or the Bronx; if your ancestors came from a Spanish speaking country you'll still get called a "Mexican" by them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?
*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.
quote:Not much fresh grass on the Dims path either.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Unfortunately the GOP seems to be treading the same well-worn path yet again.
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
Originally posted by romanlion:
They will enthusiastically support a tired, not particularly bright or charming, demonstrated liar and cheat for POTUS, and move Slick Willy back into the whor...er, White House again in the process.
quote:But of course you will vote, right?
Originally posted by saysay:
Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
quote:Please support a third party.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see myself voting in the general election.
quote:I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:That probably beats fretting and fuming.
Originally posted by saysay:
But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
quote:As long as folks can be peaceful about it, it shouldn't be a forbidden thought. The last time such a thought was acted upon we had hundreds of thousands slaughtered so don't be surprised if lots of folks break out in a severe case of the willies.
But then I'm getting to the point where I think the best plan may be to dissolve the US and form smaller more regional provinces or something.
quote:According to the North Carolina Jury Service website,
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:(emphasis added by me)
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
quote:I do.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does anyone else take comfort in the fact that the election won't come down to one vote?
quote:Yes. It's like that for most all of us. I read this and have to pretty much agree with what he has to say.
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
quote:It really shouldn't for several reasons, including why have said, and it seems if they have a say they shouldn't mind you having one.
I'm just really glad that I don't have to know that my vote one way or the other made half of my family really upset.
quote:Way cool. Thanks for finding that.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the North Carolina Jury Service website,quote:(emphasis added by me)
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
quote:There can, of course, be policy ramification to this 'I've got mine, screw you' electoral attitude. For example, it was frequently noted during the Iraq War that the U.S. military was drawn from a smaller proportion of the overall population than in times past. That minimized the electoral consequences of the decision to go to war (and maintain the war), since most Americans were "living a life that is probably not going to change much" whether their country was involved in a protracted war of choice in the Middle East or not.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yes. It's like that for most all of us.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
quote:This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
quote:You could also remember that American elections use a secret ballot and that the only way they'll know to get mad at you is if you tell them.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:That's what I'm talking about. Romney won Arizona by over 200,000 votes. Now had Obama won by one vote, she might have had something to be mad about.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
quote:I have a solution to that, Og, and it's really pretty simple. Drink beer.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They both ask, and I am a terrible liar. Not to mention the weeks building up to the election when I am the subject of "I can't believe he might vote for that guy" conversations among friends and family. It is ideally a personal, private matter, but these days so few people keep it to themselves that lots of people feel no shame in asking "so who are you going to vote for," or just launching into a rant on the assumption you agree with them.
quote:But if you do you'll miss the (unintentional?) hilarity of candidates using the Waffen-SS in their campaign materials.
Originally posted by RuthW:
For people who don't want to read election news: Slate's election news blocker.
quote:Could be good advice in lots of places and circumstances.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So the warning was, if you see a police looking guy walking down the street for you, casually move away as fast as you could.
quote:We can only hope.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
quote:Blogger Steve M makes the interesting observation that Trump is polling at 32% among Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters who don't have a college degree and at 8% among those who do. That's a pretty wide separation.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The latest news from the clown car; in a recent poll Trump poll lead widens. It's a small poll and many Republicans are hoping things change.
quote:Well, that's everyone in the pool, isn't it? Everyone with an exploratory committee on the Republican side is now officially running. For those who need a score card, the list (in chronological order of official declaration of candidacy) is:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
John Kasich is officially in the race. I hope he can make it into the top 10. I want to hear him lecture The Donald about St. Peter.
quote:Why on earth do you think he will flame out by October? What could cause him to do that? Do you think he'll say something incredibly offensive? He already did that that and its put him the the lead in the polls.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
quote:I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Honestly, I find the joke a bit offensive (as well as stale-- we've been hearing it for almost 16 years). It reminds me a lot of when I was first ordained and folks would call me "Pastor" Cliffdweller with an audible inflection that implied air quotes next to "pastor". When, in fact, there was nothing amusing about it-- I was and am a pastor. No air quotes. And, if Hilary is elected, Bill will indeed be the "first gentleman". No air quotes. Nothing particularly funny about it, even if some folks don't think he always acts all that "gentlemanly".
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
That's almost too funny to wish against!
quote:Not that surprising. If you asked any American who doesn't follow politics closely they'd have much the same reaction. They either wouldn't know who you were talking about, or would identify them with some vague descriptor rather than by name. Like "that guy who was really thirsty that one time on national television" or "the one who doesn't like volcano monitoring" or "the one whose name is a vaguely disgusting internet neologism" [slightly NSFW].
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.
Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?
quote:You'd probably know something about many of them if you followed US politics at all, but if you don't, you wouldn't. What's so remarkable about that? They're not interested in getting your vote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about.
quote:Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates. The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
quote:Not the first time I've heard those names linked. Although I generally think Nixon was more trustworthy than Dubya.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
quote:The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
quote:Hoping for Walker, personally. Bush might actually be able to BS people into thinking he's a moderate. Walker isn't capable of doing so on a national scale - he's virtually guaranteed to lose a general election unless the Dems hose it up royally. (That said, the Democrats are past masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
quote:This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
quote:I don't think he's going anytime soon and I think this quote from a Huffington Post article on Trump will tell you why
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He doesn't need the party. He could run as a third-party candidate.
But I wouldn't get too excited about Trump enthusiasm.
quote:link
Trump has also largely eschewed the poverty-shaming strain of Republicanism espoused in Paul Ryan's "makers and takers" rhetoric, Scott Walker's drug testing of food stamp applicants, and the "let him die" episode from a 2011 primary debate. But not all of the GOP base wants to stick it to the poors. Many of them are poor, and fed up with a government that doesn't seem to be looking out for them. They like Medicare and Social Security, and think Democrats are raiding the programs to fund Obamacare and Obamaphones. They don't see why banks should get bailouts while their friends get pink slips.
Trump is targeting that segment of the Republican party, which shares many economic concerns with Democrats and independents. Trump's campaign speeches don't revert to the time-honored Republican promise to "save" Social Security by slashing benefits for retirees. Instead, he vows to preserve the safety net -- even Medicaid -- by making everybody so rich that the programs would be on sound financial footing.
quote:Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Donald Trump has doxxed Lindsey Graham. After Graham called him a 'jackass' in a TV interview Trump responded by reading out Graham's cell phone number at a live televised event and Graham now has to get a new number.
quote:I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
quote:The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively but they have both still a substantial number of voters who aren't in any hurry to switch back to the main parties. I think Trump could do reasonably well (but not win overall) in the primaries. After that he could well run as an Independent or 3rd party candidate.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
quote:My guess is that if he's eliminated in the primaries, his ego won't allow him not to run as an independent. Which will give the GOP a serious problem.
Bibliophile: I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
quote:The situations are by no means comparable. There is no equivalent to FPTP in national elections, and the FN is doing pretty well in first rounds.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:It now seems that even the finger wagging option may be getting out of reach. Trump has now openly threatened to run as as 3rd party candidate if the RNC don't 'treat him fairly'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
quote:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248910-exclusive-trump-threatens-third-party-run
NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.
“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”
Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.”
“I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”
quote:That is why the GOP loves voter id laws and eliminating early voting and same-day registration - because of the disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor and students and women -- all groups which lean Democratic. If they GOP can suppress their votes effectively, they might have a shot at the White House. They've already wrapped up the House until the next census and will probably always have a rural vs. urban advantage in that body. In the last election cycle, there was talk of changing the winner-take-all electoral college to distributing the electors based on congressional districts, which again would favour the GOP presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.
Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.
Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close. ...
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
quote:That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:If you do the math you will see that the smaller states are heavily weighted through the EC.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
quote:Sorry. That's nonsense. It is not believable that all the voters in one big state would vote for the same candidate. If there's a straight headcount, all votes are of equal value, wherever they are.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:Damn straight.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
quote:Hilarious!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:I'm always amazed at the level of self-contradictory "reasoning" fans of the electoral college can come up with the support that anachronism. In the 2012 election Wyoming voted Republican by a margin of more than 40 percentage points, while the Dakotas had margins of about 20 percentage points each. Under the electoral college, any effort that doesn't move the state to a majority in your favor is wasted. Given this, there's no reason to visit those states now, as can be seen from this handy website. On the other hand, if votes from those states would still be counted in your presidential total even if you didn't carry a majority of the population, that would be an incentive to pay them some attention.
Originally posted by romanlion:
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
quote:No one is saying that he is a progressive but on a number of issues he is on the left of the American political spectrum.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Hilarious!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
quote:I think it was Huffington Post.
Brenda Clough: Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment?
quote:Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
quote:No, but Jon Stewart is rather famously Jewish and is probably referring to the fact that as long as Donald Trump is in the race the Daily Show will never want for material.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
quote:I know. I've been going to bed with Stewart (wink, wink) every night very years... it won't be the same.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
quote:Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
quote:I did. My post reflects the results of that search.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
quote:But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
quote:Six months is still too far out, imo. That leaves the debate mattering because of a state fair. Here I am 56 years old having thought all of my life a fair was for riding rides and looking at crops and animals.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
quote:I don't see much of a distinction between the two. I also don't much of a distinction between the DNC and the the other cable news channels.
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
quote:Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all-- even if it's doomed to make us love him all the more and thus make the parting all the more poignant.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
quote:Sanders is actually rather liberal on immigration issues. As for saying that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal that's simply a statement of fact.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
quote:You would have a better shot of catching something fresh and actually funny if you watched the debate.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
quote:It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked. Soaking in the pool, downing some suds and watching a baseball game was my plan. We live in a condo and it's the pool for the condo complex so it isn't something I can easily remedy. So, instead of groovy we have to settle for swell.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps our Nick could arrange things so he could lounge in the swimming pool, drink beer and watch the comedy show all at the same time.
quote:You just need a little more initiative. Slingbox or similar in your unit, hooked up to your cable. Webcast the video to a laptop or tablet in the pool.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked.
quote:I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
quote:You underestimate the degree to which the Tea Party (and similar) is about simple resentment. Scott Walker hates unions and busts them, particularly public sector unions. Plus he survived a recall election, so he's already stuck it to "them". ("Them" in this case being some vaguely liberal conspiracy.) Yes he's terrible at public speaking, but "smarmy asshole" is what the Tea Party is looking for. It's their key demographic.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
quote:No, no. Lindsey Graham is a man...
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless I'm missing something, the only woman is on the reserve list.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Oops. That should be the "other seven". I left out this guy:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The "other six", who will be participating in the earlier "kiddie table" debate, are:
- Rick Santorum
- Bobby Jindal
- Carly Fiorina
- Lindsey Graham
- George Pataki
- Jim Gilmore
quote:Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
quote:Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:Yes, that's true, but Martin O'Malley's bellyaching.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:I just read that FOX had 24 million viewers for the debate so, there you go.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Oh well. Fox got its content, perhaps a little ratings bump, and advertizing dollars. If ESPN can invent a need for bowl games featuring mediocre college football teams so that it has something to show in December, I guess Fox can invent a need for debates in August, as long as the candidates show up.
quote:Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that the size of the Trump ego is such that he not only really believes that he can win the nomination, he believes he can win the election and become a viable president. This man's attachment to reality is of the most tenuous.
quote:Any network would be glad to have her.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I mean look at who he picked as his target. Prior to this, all sorts of people would have told you that Megan Kelly was only on TV because she has a pretty face and can spout Fox talking points.
quote:I doubt it. He can't talk out of his ass like that and look better over time.
If there is anyone who he can be sure that people will stop siding with in a few weeks max, it's Megan Kelly.
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
quote:They should put that in the Bodyform advert.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
7lPeriod- shaming? Really? What is this, 1985?
Actually, what he seems to be implying is that women are sharper, more aggressive pundits when on their periods, so maybe we ought to use that superpower more.
quote:You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
quote:Again, this is a pattern for Trump... and for other GOP leaders as well. There is some pretty serious money to be made on the (both conservative & liberal) speaking circuit for pretty easy work. It's not like you'd have to give up your day job (as you would with POTUS)-- it's just a nice lucrative side job. And you still get the ego thing-- everybody ponying up big $$ to listen to you, quoting you, applauding you-- w/o having to be accountable for your decisions or having to do the hard work of negotiating with Congress (something I can't see Trump doing in a million years).
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
quote:Oh, who knows? To your point, he appears to be playing with his own money (one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...), although one wonders if that is his plan longterm. Trump isn't exactly a rational investor-- he's been bankrupt 4 times. He's a reckless swing-for-the-fences kind of guy who has the big wins and the big losses to show for it.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Does it really outway the cost of running in the first place ?
quote:Whilst I think they had very different motivations, part of the appeal they both share is they are speaking to people who feel oppressed by their current situation.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What worries me about Trump is that when Hitler rose to power everyone thought he was a clown, too. His very presence in the lineup shows that there's something deeply wrong.
quote:Ugh, that reminds me of his appearance in front of a Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry a few years ago. When asked to provide evidence to back up his assertions (in this case on the negative impact on tourism of wind turbines) he replied "I am the evidence".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...)
quote:Well, he is running... when he first got in, I just thought he was too independent and too liberal to win... but I dunno, he's gaining a lot of traction. I thought the same thing of Obama around this time in the election cycle, was just praying he'd hang in there til the Calif primary so I'd get to vote for him at least once... and look what happened... in many ways, Sanders reminds me of Obama.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why can't we have someone like him for president?
quote:Hey, we were having a moment there.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?
I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Don't go putting you-know-what in the punchbowl.
quote:If Trump sends some money her way, she'll likely do whatever he wants. It will definitely be "TRUMP for President in 2016", not "Trump/Palin in 2016."
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
those who criticize his blatant misogyny.quote:Anyone who can recognize misogyny should also be able to recognize tokenism.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would
...
quote:I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
quote:There's always this.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
quote:Naked ego in politics beats naked politicians. Ask around.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:The hair alone demonstrates that.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:He does! If he actually makes it through the nominations I think almost any Democrat but Clinton would beat him. It's not her fault, but she is so hated by most Republicans, I think they would vote for any Republican rather than her.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The Donald is the real wild card in this election. I find very few redeeming qualities there (OK, I find none) but he stands a good chance of playing kingmaker--for the Democrats.
quote:Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Trump doesn't need the Fox News money but he definitely needs their unfair, not balanced backing from their various talking heads. The Fox Faithful are ditto heads.
This morning Trump says anyone who thought his remarks referred to anything other than nose bleeds are "deviants." He also says he will be "phenomenal to the women." Thanks for being so specific, Donald. I feel better now.
quote:I think you're wrong about that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So Trump has been uninvited to speak at a Red State forum after suggesting that Megan Kelly asked him pointed questions because she was on her period.
This is too easy. He makes a big fuss about how neither of the parties are ready for a straight talker who can cut through the B.S., drops out of the Republican primaries, but reminds everyone that he never said he wouldn't run as an independent. He goes out on top, and he gets will he or won't he coverage for the next 12 months.
I'd set the over / under at Labor Day, but that's three weeks out.
quote:I never heard of Megan Kelly until this story broke. I doubt that many people who don't watch Faux News had heard of her. Now everyone has. She couldn't have bought this kind of publicity. If anything, Trump's behavior is apt to encourage other moderators to try for the same treatment.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
quote:fwiw, "smart" is not a word anyone would have used to describe Kelly prior to the debate.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News.
quote:Was it Oscar Wilde who suggested that it wasn't the last refuge but the first?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A "Janet and John" summary of Trump's immigration policy now follows.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
quote:Nope. Trump's standard mode of interaction with anyone is to either talk about how great he (or anything with his name on it) is or to insult and denigrate anyone who asks him a tough question or disagrees with him. This isn't a deliberate plan, it's just Trump being Trump. I suppose it could be argued that Trump's overall campaign strategy is to appeal to the belligerent asshole faction of the Republican party, but that's more playing to his strengths than any kind of deliberate plan.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
quote:Bear in mind -- it was founded by Rupert Murdoch.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bibliophile
For your information, Fox News is not a news service. Its stock in trade is propaganda. I learned this by watching its coverage of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.
YMMV but if it does you are wrong.
quote:"Straight up propaganda network" as a description fits in very well with the coverage of the last two Presidential elections by Fox which I personally observed. There were times when the bias was so blatant, I couldn't believe my eyes and my ears.
The creation of straight-up propaganda networks like Fox News in America has done enormous damage to the quality of democratic discourse in that country. Many people blame the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission’s “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, under President Reagan, for setting this process of degeneration in motion. This rule had required broadcasters, both radio and television, to inform their audience about matters of public interest, and specified that “coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for . . . contrasting points of view.” This doctrine was, over the years, unpopular with both the left and right, depending on the tenor of discussion in the media. It seems clear, however, that a lot of current right-wing talk radio, as well as Fox News, could not operate as it currently does without the abolition of this rule.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:About a year ago, I was in the presence of someone was complaining that, of a group of young business people profiled in a magazine, none of them listed a truly "great" film as their favorite movie. I think your favorite book or movie need not be the book or movie that has most influenced you, and that whenever people put "The Bible" as their favorite book, it comes off as a boast rather than a believable statement. If I were going to a deserted island for a year, I would certainly want to bring my Bible and BCP, but that doesn't mean that either one is my favorite book (the Code of the Woosters).
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....
Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible?
quote:I don't really see the point of challenging him, as he no doubt has an outrageous response ready which will put him back in the limelight.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?
quote:I might have been a little over eager when I set the over / under at Labor Day, although I'm not paying on over yet. His numbers have plateaued and perhaps dropped a bit. He is still in the lead, but given that his negative numbers are so high among the 75-85% of Republicans who don't support him, it seems unlikely that he will pick up supporters as other candidates drop out.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.
quote:Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
quote:Plus, she has said she didn't receive anything that was designated "classified." I expect the FBI might find some classified information that was sent to her private e-mail but not flagged as classified, in which case it wont be her fault, but I'm sure FOX news will go nuts.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
quote:I find the dynamics of what is happening between the BLM movement and the Democrat candidates rather interesting.
Og, King of Bashan: People get upset with BLM for protesting Democrats rather than Republicans.
quote:That sounds great, until State says that she used personal email exclusively.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
quote:I agree. My experience is extremely outdated but the last jobs my husband and I had before retiring we were often doing things on the computer for our bosses who had no clue how to do it themselves. Things are different now but I think Clinton was probably only half joking when someone asked her if she had wiped her account and she said, "You mean with a cloth?" Did Eisenhower know how to type? Could Kennedy take shorthand? I doubt it, and I doubt that the Secretary of State knew how to erase a hard drive.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't know about State, but in my Agency the use of email for Classified information is discouraged. so yeah, I do find it believable that she never sent or received an email containing information designated as "classified". Such material may have been exclusively sent/received in hard copy, or via diplomatic data systems which are more secure than email. email is, in my experience, rarely use for that sort of thing. But my experience may be outdated, since it's been a while since I dealt with diplomatic issues at work. Nevertheless, I find it completely plausible that she did not handle that sort of email herself, but rather that staff would have handled it for her, and provided her with hard copy when necessary.
quote:You would be surprised (well, perhaps not) at the number of public sector managers who were horrified at learning that erase from their e-mail folder was not equivalent to destroying the message. I fear that I was among the minions who took pleasure at the visible involuntary quiver when they were told that a government business message, even when sent on their own machine on an unofficial account, still fell under the Act and, what was more, was copyright to the Government.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The rule is simple: "Never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want a jury to see."
quote:Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
In my official days, I treated emails as if they were formal correspondence, and the only difference was that they appeared on screens rather than were inserted in envelopes.
quote:You certainly shouldn't ever put anything secret in an unencrypted email. Think of email as being like a postcard. Probably, nobody will look at it, but anyone in the delivery chain could have a read. (Oh, and they can easily store a copy if they like.)
Originally posted by Twilight:
Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
quote:I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school-- yes, for sexist reasons (the boys took shop, girls took home economics & typing) but most of us did learn. And it was quite helpful for those of us, like Mrs. Clinton, who went on to higher education and grad school (our male peers usually had to pay big $$ to get their papers and dissertations typed). In those days of lower tuition/ more scholarship opportunities I was able to put myself thru college & grad school working as a faculty secretary-- good training for when I became an academic with my own administrative assistant.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
quote:I'm older than she is, and typing was a required course for academic-track (college bound) students.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school. . . .
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type. . . .
quote:"Post 2000"? Wow, that is surprising. What's the evidence for this?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
quote:In my high school days in Ontario (1967-72), academic-stream girls would usually not take typing as that was for girls who intended to become secretaries and not go to university. I was one of the few males in the class (64 wpm on manual, IIRC) as I suspected that typed essays would soon become mandatory. By 1980, the tide had turned and all academic-stream students were taking typing.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
. quote:On the link quoted above is a further link to
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump.
quote:Why just the FBI? Don't state investigators count? On the Republican side that club includes Scott Walker (whose investigation was squelched under dubious circumstances and whose appointees seem to keep winding up in prison), Rick Perry (currently under indictment), and Chris Christie (multiple investigations relating to the vindictive use of power in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal). Interestingly these are all criminal investigations, unlike the Clinton e-mail investigation, which is the result of "a 'counterintelligence referral' -- not a 'criminal referral'".
Originally posted by romanlion:
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?
quote:If you mean the marital cheating thing, the Republicans would seem more likely just through sheer numerical superiority (seventeen declared candidates as opposed to five). If you mean the criminal investigation thing, the Republicans seem to be leading there as well (two active and one recently quashed investigation vs. zero)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
quote:I think that by definition, sexual conservatives have more to hide.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
quote:Reminds me of Gary Hart.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Reminds me of Gary Hart.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:Elected leaders have been breaking promises and betraying people since (I'll bet) the first vestiges of democracy appeared. We really shouldn't be surprised when they do the same in what are sometimes called their "private" lives.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:Amazingly, Hillary didn't kill him, after he embarrassed her in front of the entire world. So we know she can exercise restraint in a crisis. Handy skill, should she be president.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
quote:The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it (there are no relationships without compromises, and while that's not a deal I would make, there's no way she didn't know he was sometimes unfaithful).
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense. Probably because I was clueless about my first husband's serial adulteries for 11 years.
Originally posted by saysay:
The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it.
quote:I go way beyond that. I don't think the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate someone who could possibly, or even likely, lose to one of the clowns when, in my view, Hillary will be the next President barring something utterly extraordinary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.
Hilary's still probably the likely candidate, but not as much of a fait accompli as we would have thought a month or two ago.
quote:Could be she was just keeping her mouth shut because of the startling resemblance of her daughter to her former law partner, who knows?
Originally posted by saysay:
She's not stupid enough to not have known about it...
quote:Nate Silver has his odds up to 5% for winning the Democratic nomination. Sanders is popular with liberal white democrats, especially men. He polls badly with black voters (they give him credit for his record) and "Reagen Democrats." I think a lot of us (myself included) probably overestimate his shot because we tend to have lots of white liberal friends, so we see a lot about him on social media.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you are most likely correct-- but would just say I don't think it is entirely a foregone conclusion that Hilary will get the Democratic nomination. Sanders is drawing far more support than I would have guessed. In another season I would have thought he was far too leftist to win, but with the GOP clown car careening wildly toward the cliffs of doom, he has a chance to invigorate us Dems who otherwise would go for a more sensible choice.
quote:Any number of them, depending on voter turn out. Obama made it to the White House on the back of a super successful get out the vote campaign. Bad turn-out has cost the Democrats the Senate and the balance of governor's seats, and it could easily cost them the White House.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Let me throw out a question:
Who, among the clown car, stands a ghost of a chance against Hillary in the general election?
quote:In my opinion, all the GOP aspirants so far have been and will continue to be be a gift to the Democrats.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that a Trump nomination would be a gift to the Democrats.
quote:A Message On Donald Trump From Conspiracy Theory Hillary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In fact, some are already saying that, and some are even suggesting that he may be a stooge planted by by Democrats (perhaps those crafty, cunning Clintons?).
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The man will certainly go down in the anals of history.
quote:I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Also, the clown car is doing a fine job of energizing Hispanics. Jeb and Rubio are doing little to help matters.
quote:At this point in the election cycle, I think they're looking for large donations rather than votes. They probably figure they have more hope for the big bucks from white audiences than they do from Latinos.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
tangent:
She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense.
quote:Do I give a shit what Trump cares about? I am just gleefully noting how he is eroding his potential Republican base.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kelly--
I doubt that Trump cares--except he may well think that they shouldn't be here, either.
Reality, reason, history, and common sense are beyond his ken.*
*"...and Barbie, and all my other action figures!"--Lorn, "Angel".
quote:I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
Originally posted by saysay:
More realistically I suspect a lot of people are simply not going to vote in this election. The government redistributes wealth upwards no matter who is in office, so what does it matter?
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:Sadly, this is not the case. We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
quote:I definitely think the Clinton era changes have played a role, but most that I've read trace it further back to Reagan's zero-tolerance drug laws/ mandatory sentencing.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:All I'm saying is that if someone generally ignored your issues and told you to vote for them anyway because they were better than the other guy or because they have always had your back (even when they didn't), you would be upset. The Black Lives Matter movement feels like this is what is happening to black voters now, and there is an argument that it is happening to Latino voters as well. If your main strategy to appeal to minority voters is to let the other guy say racist things and hope that the minority voters punish him at the ballot box, you aren't earning their votes. This isn't a partisan argument, this is about recognizing that white voters are treated differently from black and Latino voters. You earn the white vote with campaign promises, and then you hope the other guy says enough scary things to get the black and Latino vote out. That is wrong. And that's why you need a primary with multiple contenders. If the party insiders settle on one candidate whose main job is keeping the big donors happy, who is going to force them to listen to the people who don't have the dollars to influence policy?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it?
Tell blacks that their issues aren't really important to them and that they will really be happy with visits from someone they have rapport with.
I can't say what the response will be, but if it is "fuck that," I don't blame them.
quote:I'm not sure either, which is why I suggested the above effective role for him. I think that he can make it clear that a vote for Hilary is a vote for both of them - a transposition of an earlier line he used during his campaigns.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
quote:Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
quote:When Secretary Clinton told the BLM representatives that their movement should also be developing and presenting concrete policy proposals, they responded that asking them for solutions was "victim-blaming". Unfortunately for them, I think she's right: if all the BLM movement creates is a hashtag and street demonstrations, nothing will change. And there are some really obvious things they should have been able to present immediately: end mandatory minimum sentencing, end three-strikes-and-you're-out, outlaw papers-please and stop-and-frisk, decriminalize possession of illegal drugs for personal use, establish national guidelines for use-of-force and investigating police killings, improve public defender services, equip police with as many fricking recording devices as they can carry, ensure every inmate in prison has access to education and mental health treatment, as well as better support for parole, probation and release ... I could go on.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it? ...
quote:Nothing in there to address Jamyla Bolden
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think I saw a website with 10 policy proposals by the BLM movement. I have to look it up.
ETA found it: Campaign Zero
quote:I am delighted that Obama has failed to lead us into a war. How often do we need to hear it? No land wars in Asia!!! No one could say our little adventure in Iraq was worth the billions of dollars and many deaths it cost. Both my children are in the US Army, so chicken hawks get no quarter from me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
quote:Sure. There is no doubt that African-Americans have every right to complain about the Democrat's casual indifference/ sense of entitlement to their vote. There is no doubt that they have every right to complain about the current state of affairs. Frustration, heartbreak, raw anger-- all appropriate responses.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you were being harassed at work, you complained to the boss, and he said "come back with some proposals to make things better for you," wouldn't you want to say "O gave you my proposal, stop being an asshole"?
quote:Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
quote:The proposals were out there long before the riots or black lives matter movement. It's just nobody was paying attention.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think the slate of specific proposals that have come out since then illustrate.
quote:Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
quote:It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war. The description of the US and UK tax systems as not very progressive in accordance with the classic definition is simply a statement of fact.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Sadly, this is not the case.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
quote:Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
There is an open class war being waged, and those who have power and money have made it clear that they will do anything to maintain their power and money.
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
quote:Agreed, shut down Faux news and MSNBC simultaneously and you'll immediately elevate the level of discourse: the problem is policing the sheer volume of media out there, and finding a way for both sides to agree on what's 'fair'.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Next, reinstate the "fairness doctrine" for media giving opposing viewpoints equal time or space to rebut potential bias in the media. That would put an end to overt partisan propaganda peddled in the guise of news.
quote:This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
quote:I'm simply being realistic.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
quote:You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
quote:You said the US government, like the UK government, sits by and simply lets the redistribution of wealth upwards happen. I objected to that description as far too passive given the government's actions. What they did in Ferguson has been documented in reputable news sources. What they did elsewhere is being documented.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war.
quote:I'm actually of the opinion that states need to start drawing up their articles of secession.
Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
quote:Oh, I admit, she'll likely get the Democratic nomination. (not because she's addressed the necessary changes, because she hasn't, but because people think it's her turn)
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them.
quote:Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
quote:Indeed. Since Trump and his empire are one and the same, the Trump Empire (a royal house of sorts?) would preside. Would he or could he honestly divest himself of his identity with his empire for even a few years?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
quote:No manipulation-- just my experience. I know what it's like to spend hours upon hours wading thru meticulous paperwork trying to get the right combination of factors, to get in just the right network with just the right pediatrician, to get the referral that would get my son the treatment he needed.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Well, no, I didn't, since I got what little medical care the state required at the free clinic.
quote:You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
If you're going to refuse to listen to the people when they tell you that in many cases the medical bills after Obamacare are more expensive than they were before it, prepare for your candidate to lose.
quote:I suspect you are correct, but it will be interesting to see. At this moment in time Sanders has a bit of the same feel that Obama had at this point in the election cycle. I was sure at that time that he would never get the nomination, but hoped he would hang in there long enough for me to vote for him in our state's primary. But he did get the nod. So... I don't know.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them. I know, I'll admit that it may be campaign rhetoric, but what is the alternative.
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:What qualifies him to do this job? Stewart is amazing at what he's been doing for the last 15 years or so, but I don't see how a gift for satire would make him a stellar political operator.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe... with Jon Stewart as campaign manager...
quote:
Plouffe began his political career by working for Senator Tom Harkin's 1990 re-election campaign.[15] He later worked as a state field director for Harkin's unsuccessful 1992 Presidential campaign. In the same year he successfully managed Congressman John Olver's first re-election bid in Massachusetts. In 1994 Plouffe managed Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly's unsuccessful campaign against Senator William V. Roth. He then worked as campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995. In 1996 Plouffe managed Bob Torricelli's successful campaign to fill Bill Bradley's New Jersey seat in the United States Senate.[citation needed]
From 1997-98, Plouffe served as Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's Deputy Chief of Staff. In 1999–2000, as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Plouffe led Democrats to gains that came within several thousand votes of winning back the House. He also led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to unusually high fundraising amounts, during his tenure at the DCCC. In the winter of 2000, Plouffe joined AKPD Message and Media but left briefly to serve as a strategist for Gephardt's unsuccessful Presidential bid. He returned to the firm and became a partner in February 2004. Beginning in 2003, Plouffe and fellow AKPD partner David Axelrod worked on Barack Obama's 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, beginning his association with Obama. Plouffe worked with Axelrod on the successful 2006 campaign of Deval Patrick for Governor of Massachusetts.
quote:I don't see him as a Hilary fan. Oh, I'm sure if she ends up with the nod he'll support her-- but I don't see him getting excited enough about her presidency to leave a lucrative career where he can pretty much write his own ticket. I could see him however getting that excited about Sanders or Warren.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A Vice-Presidential candidate perhaps? Hilary could act "Presidential" while Stewart goes for the jugular. He'd have a field day with any GOP nominee.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After Obama, I think the Democrats may well be attracted to an experienced 'fixer and manipulator' given a) that they are likely to win again (demographics) and b) have to cope with a stacked House of Reps and/or Senate. That's the edge the Clinton family will have in selection of candidate. That happens first. On presidential polling day, disaffected minorities may see their choice as being between 'a louse and a double-louse' (a famous observation from a previous election). But if they stay away, they will get the GOP with a House Majority to boot. I don't think they will go for that.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:True enough. I suppose it depends on how angry you feel. But Obama's publicly expressed frustrations seem real enough to me. He's hamstrung.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
quote:Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:Don't overestimate the political sophistication of the typical American voter, for whom "Socialism" means horrible countries like Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and France, lands without freedom and economic opportunity. In the minds of many, even Canada would be on the list.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:Well, he's not a spring chicken, but I always wish those in public life a long and healthy life (although some individuals I would like to see them experience retirement).
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:I have a friend who is just old enough to remember Saskatchewan when the CCF brought in Medicare in 1961. 30% patients never paid their bills, they were either dead or deadbeat. By 1962 Saskatchewan was a net destination for doctors as they made more money than under the private system. The Government took its cut for appearances, and let the doctors have the rest, and assured payment for every patient they saw.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Don't forget "socialized medicine", a designation which has helped hold back a national health care system here.
quote:It seems to me the SC (to which I belonged in my dipper days) inspires more yawns than fear. Their website and newsletter don't even seem to have been updated in some time. Fightback on the other hand seems to have a little more organizing clout. (The Toronto New Democratic Youth is dominated by Fighback entrists and frequently clashes with its provincial executive, who at one point voided the TNDY's executive elections when it returned a slate of Fightback/IMT Trotskysts).
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:Canadian NDP
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a dipper please? The usual meaning I know if this rather charming little bird.
quote:To be fair to you, I don't think Channel 3 ever called him anything but "the Socialist Mayor of Burlington".
I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
quote:Scott Walker's campaign seems to have been sinking like a rock lately. Here is the latest polling average from Huffington Post
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
quote:LOL. He's also know in fifth place in the latest Iowa polls, joint fourth in New Hampshire and joint seventh in South Carolinia. Its difficult to see how he recovers from that.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am sorry to hear that Scott Walker is fading from the scene-- I was really anxious to hear how the northern frontier barrier (Wall of Scott doesn't have the same poetry as Wall of Hadrian) would be doing. I thought that perhaps it could provide employment for mosaic makers, so that the artistic shining wall could improve the aesthetic sensibilities of Minnesotans.
quote:Oh Pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee Lil' baby Jesus, may it be so!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't know if this is th right thread to put this in but apparently Glenn Beck's 'The Blaze' in in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxVM7U_C2g
I can't say I'm sorry about this, I'm not really a Glenn Beck fan
it would be beyond satisfying to see his empire collapse.
quote:Oh, my-- that sounds horrible. Do they at least pay your some sort of hazard pay bonus??? I would have thought the labor code/occupational safety board would have some sort of rules against such work conditions. I'm available to organize picket lines/ boycotts...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have to listen to three hours of his ranting every day on the job,
quote:Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
quote:OK here's another general election poll from a different polling company. This one the latest ORC poll for CNN
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
quote:Rick Perry has now dropped out of the race. I wonder if CNN will go ahead with having eleven in the main debate and four at the secondary event?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Looks like the lineup for the Republican primary debate next week has been determined.
The main event will consist of:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- J.E.B. Bush
- Ted Cruz
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Carly Fiorina
- Mike Huckabee
- Rand Paul
- John Kasich
- Chris Christie
Note that Fiorina and Kasich have moved up from the "kiddie table" debate into the main event. Interestingly this debate will have one more candidate in the main event than last time (bringing the total to eleven*), but it still means that one candidate who was in the main event last time has been "demoted" to the earlier debate in next week's event. In this case it's Rick Perry who has been pushed down to the undercard event, where he'll join Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham. Jim Gilmore has been dropped from the event entirely, not because he's dropped out of the race but because he hasn't achieved the minimum threshold of polled support to qualify for a seat.
--------------------
*The Spinal Tap-themed promotions practically write themselves. "The Reagan Library Republican Primary Debates: this time they go to eleven!"
quote:Quinnipiac poll
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
quote:Matchups from the ORC poll I linked to above
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Maybe not:
quote:Quinnipiac poll
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
Biden has his amusing moments, but he's no doofus. Many of President Obama's accomplishments were built on foundations that Biden developed, using the wisdom and connections developed over years of public service. He's been referred to as the nation's Eulogizer-in-Chief and he has huge personal appeal among a wide variety of people.
quote:And President Obama was born in '61, meaning he was younger than most of the above when he ran the first time around.
Originally posted by HCH:
It is interesting to notice the ages of the various contenders.
Bernie Sanders was born in 1941.
Joe Biden was born in 1942.
Donald Trump was born in 1946.
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947.
Ben Carson was born in 1951.
Carly Fiorina was born in 1954.
Chris Christie was born in 1962.
Rand Paul was born in 1963.
Ted Cruz was born in 1970.
Marco Rubio was born in 1971.
While the Republicans apparently have a supply of relatively young, ambitious participants and more in the wings, the top Democrats are not spring chickens. Who does the Democratic party have to run for President in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc.?
(Our youngest President was 42 when he was sworn in, and the oldest was 69. The average is 54 years, 11 months.)
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
quote:Depends on who she's running against. The GOP at this point seems entirely incapable of pulling their s**t together to put forward an even halfway credible candidate. Hilary, Biden, and even Sanders would have a cake walk against Trump. But, as has been noted already, it's early days still, so time will tell.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
quote:"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
quote:I think it would be tough for him to be on the campaign trail and suffer the inevitable attacks right now (which is rough at the best of times, much less when you're in mourning).
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Biden--
He'd be much happier not running, IMHO. AIUI, he's only considering it because his son (Bo?), before he died, asked him to run. Maybe even made him promise to.
quote:What makes you think electing Hillary will get the middle and working classes back the prosperity of the 90s?
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
quote:Right. She is one of the super-wealthy, one of the class that has made it perfectly clear that they are willing to do anything to preserve the power that they (in many cases undeservedly) hold.
Personally, I don't find Hillary to be genuine, I don't entirely trust her, don't find her to be particularly charismatic, and I believe that her bid for the presidency is ultimately aimed at increasing her personal wealth.
quote:And again I'm baffled by your belief that she has anyone's interests but her own (and her wealthy donors') in mind. You said it yourself - she's a shrewd, calculating, political mover.
But I'll still vote for her, because I believe that she is a shrewd, calculating political mover and I think that is what it takes to get stuff done. Bill can run as her VP for all I care.
Right now, any hope we have of closing the income inequality gap lies with Hillary. The GOP won't do it, and the rest of the DNC crew lacks the political awareness and/or capital to push the proper legislation through.
YMMV
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
The "general public's" supposed hatred of the Clintons is largely an artifact of the media's deep and abiding genuine hatred of the Clintons. (e.g. the New York Time's massively inaccurate "scoop" on the Clinton e-mail "scandal".) The American public have never hated either of the Clintons with the degree of antipathy the press feels they should.
quote:Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
Trump touted his tough-talking style as a plus.
"It's an attitude that our country needs. We get pushed around by everybody," he told Fox News, adding, "We have to push back."
quote:I'm not an American, but my impression is that most people American or not are tempted to believe everyone is pushing us around, and if you include under 'pushing around' as 'not moving when we push them anymore', more so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
quote:Agreed. But apparently it is one that a significant segment of working/middle class white men are willing to engage.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
Being "spoken for" by a multi-millionaire is of itself a serious form of erasure.
quote:You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:Don't hold back. Why?
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:I have a few questions.
Originally posted by saysay:
You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Clinton can barely conceal her contempt at the vast majority of Americans. People have noticed.
quote:The general attitude of sneering, looking down upon the people doing the manual labor that keeps the world running, signalling class position through certain words, and talking and acting as if the superior class knows the real motivation of everyone better than they do.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Don't hold back. Why?
quote:Nobody has a decent candidate. The least evil wins...
And why do you think it is that the Republicans aren't running a decent candidate? What does that say about them that they can't/won't?
quote:Most people don't see the policy. They see the liar in front of them telling them pretty lies, and they feel the damage that gets done when they're told they have to pay more than they will ever earn for something they're required (by gov't) to have.
If there is class warfare on the part of the DNC (more likely, neglect from what I've seen), it's given excellent cover by the more extreme and visible class warfare on the part of the GOP. As has been noted above, Clinton and the DNC may not be very motivated to take some constituencies' concerns very seriously when the competition is the GOP clown car.
quote:Not sneering. Not at the American public, anyway. Trump is unequivocally the least qualified candidate in the mainstream race. I understand the frustration with the business as usual pols, but jumping on board the clown car is not the solution.
Originally posted by saysay:
But keep right on sneering. Y'all will be irrelevant soon enough.
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
quote:Brenda, thanks for that. As an outsider I was having difficulty understanding why
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not all Americans. But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege. One cannot but pity people who are no longer allowed to look down upon persons of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
quote:Many colleges and universities were established by state governments. This usually means that significant legal changes to their charters have to be approved by those same governments. Ditto for federal institutions and funding. Heck, my own institution had to get the provincial government to amend the Universities Act in order to ticket* mis-parked cars on campus. Pell grants were established by an act of Congress that applies <gasp> only to college students. O noes! And of course, lots and lots and lots of laws are written with specific groups of people in mind - e.g. only owners and drivers of motor vehicles have to have drivers' licenses and insurance.
Originally posted by saysay:
... Legislators in California, New York, and now congress are writing "safe campus" acts - laws that apply only to college students. ...
quote:Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
quote:That makes a lot of sense. I was never quite sure about the Republican
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
quote:I am happy to have this discussion, but in private. I learned long ago not to try to explain such things among this pack of wolves.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.
I admit that an extremely tiny number of GOP members of Congress did side with the unemployed. That sensible and compassionate stand took guts.
quote:Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
quote:While there is life there is hope
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
quote:Actually, what I learned from both the Hilary faux scandal and the Sony hacking was that other people have far, far more interesting email correspondence than I do. I pity the poor NSA agent charged with pouring over my work emails, although I suppose if they suffer from insomnia they might come in useful...
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:You may not have been watching the Styx recently, but we have confirmed that we do have a guideline which says if you use a foreign language tag, you have to provide a translation. In this case, someone else has kindly done that for you. But next time, do it yourself.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:I missed the debate, but just looked that up.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bush III wants to put Thatcher on the ten dollar bill?
quote:(Carly Fiorina's response is more lengthy, but it's on that same page.
Chris Christie: Abigail Adams
John Kasich: Mother Theresa
Scott Walker: Clara Barton
Carly Fiorina: Wouldn't change it*
Donald Trump: His daughter, Ivanka Trump, or Rosa Parks
Ben Carson: His mother
Ted Cruz: Rosa Parks
Marco Rubio: Rosa Parks
Mike Huckabee: His wife
Rand Paul: Susan B. Anthony
quote:
The future First Lady wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
quote:Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class. Even more so, though, I thought the whole awkward exchange revealed even more clearly Trump's view on women: I can't think of a single time he has commented on any woman, anywhere, including (horrifically) his own daughter, on anything other than her physical appearance. Fiorina either "has a face no one could vote for" or she is "beautiful." His own daughter is "so stunning if she wasn't my daughter I'd be dating her". But no mention for either one of their intelligence or any other aspect of their person-- no mention on whether Fiorina has the right leadership skills, policy positions, or temperament for the position. And this is pretty much true of every public exchange she's had with our about any woman, any where. It's the only thing he notices. And, as Fiorina says, women are hearing that.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I've always suspected that Ms. Fiorina is an ice queen, in which case, Trump's (repentant?) mention of her beauty would provide half the definition, and her actions at HP would provide the rest.
quote:With extreme class. She handled it briefly and precisely, yet she refrained from going full on Carol Peletier on him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class.
quote:Hmm...Dubya gave her a very unwanted shoulder massage at a conference, caught on camera. She was visibly upset. I thought she showed enormous restraint in not hitting him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Actually, come to think of it, as Brenda noted, that could be quite fun...
quote:Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
quote:They missed a big one.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
The Washington Post has and excellent review of last nights lies and misinformation.
quote:Anyone remember this stuff?
"There's one thing I'll tell you about my brother," said Jeb(!) Bush. "He kept us safe."
quote:If that ever proves to be the case, and I hope he never gets the opportunity, she will get the better of him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies. ...
quote:If last night was any indication, I don't think Jeb will make it. He was saddled with too much baggage defending his brother's record. If he was willing to distance himself from W I think he'd have a more than decent chance, but he signaled last night that he's gonna tie his bid to W's record, which can't be a winning strategy.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If they had started correcting each other the event would have lasted another four hours, so one must thank God that no one bothered.
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
quote:The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
quote:I hope that is the case. I went on it early, due to disability. While I don't live in fear over it, I do sometimes think of it--especially when Congress openly doesn't have the political will to shore it up, and some members want to cut it altogether.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
quote:Well, I'm obviously biased-- a pretty hard-core, lifelong democrat. But in years past I've been able to identify at least some Republicans I didn't think would be an absolute disaster. John McCain 1.0, for example (2.0 being when he went over to the dark side and joined up with Rove & Palin, 3.0 being when he morphed into a bitter old man sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off the lawn). In recent years though it's gotten harder and harder to find any viable candidate on that side of the aisle. In the current clown car there's no one that seems even remotely sane. As a Dem, that of course is good news-- it should be a cake walk come fall of 2016 (although Jon Stewart will remind me to not underestimate the Dem's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). But really it's not good news for the country-- as noted earlier, if the election turns into a cake walk there will be no one to hold the Dems feet to the fire, to make us be more disciplined, to make us take seriously the concerns of our constituents.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos and cliffdweller
Hard for me to believe that there is mileage in playing the "Bush card" and the "kept us safe" myth. But the performance of the GOP candidates is looking more and more bizarre on this side of the pond. Is there a "sensible, or at least comparatively sensible" favourite?
quote:It seems you're not the first person to get that impression. From 2008
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06fiorina.html?_r=0
Opinion is still split on whether Ms. Fiorina or her successor as chief executive, Mark V. Hurd, deserve credit for Hewlett’s success after Ms. Fiorina drove through the company’s $25 billion acquisition of Compaq in 2002. By many accounts, Ms. Fiorina was superb at marketing, mixed on strategy, bad at execution — and extraordinarily successful in unifying the board against what Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management calls her “street bully” leadership style.
“What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way,” said Mr. Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the management school and one of Ms. Fiorina’s sharpest critics. “You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”
quote:I registered Republican for the only time in my life in order to vote for Anderson in the primary. When he withdrew to run as an independent, I had to hold my nose and vote for the least-bad of the remaining candidates. That was GHW Bush, who at the time was still ridiculing Reagan's "voodoo economics". I went on to work full-time for a few months on Anderson's campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I still remember John Anderson fondly, but he never got that third-party thing off the ground. Colin Powell was so smart that he refused to run, but if he had he would have been great.
quote:I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:This strikes me as just a slightly more sophisticated version of what Trump did. Again, I'm not fan of Fiorina-- because of her policies. But I really couldn't care less whether or not she smiles a lot, or is warm and cuddly. Give me a decent health care system, keep us from another war in the Middle East, maybe do something to turn back global warming at least a bit (none of which Fiorina seems to care about)-- and you can consistently scowl so fiercely you scare little children for all I care. And I have to wonder why we're not counting how many times the male candidates do/do not smile.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:That may indeed be a sign of character. According to Reuters after her failed 2010 Senate run she left owing staff and supplies about half a million dollars and then didn't pay them for four years, that is until shortly before she announced she was running for President, even though she estimated to have a net worth of up to $120 million.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Carly Fiorini had a great answer about Trumps insult toward her face when she said that the women of America heard what he was saying loud and clear, but when Trump then smarmed, "I think you're beautiful." To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult.
quote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-usa-election-fiorina-idUSKBN0O60FV20150521
Twelve of about 30 people who worked on Fiorina’s failed 2010 California Senate campaign, most speaking out for the first time, told Reuters they would not work for her again...“I’d rather go to Iraq than work for Carly Fiorina again,” said one high-level former campaign staffer
It's not common for campaigns to end in debt but not extraordinary either, said Trevor Potter, a Republican former FEC chairman. Usually wealthy candidates pay off the debts themselves "as a matter of honor and reputation because they feel badly about vendors who are stuck with these debts."...
A number of former campaign workers said they were upset that Fiorina paid them only once she had decided to run for president...nine months after she lost the election, Fiorina paid $6.1 million for a 5-acre (2. hectare) waterfront estate in Virginia, near Washington, D.C. The house has no mortgage, property records show.
quote:yeah-- Cheney could be creepy that way, for example. (*shudders*)
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Yes, you're right, my friend. I suppose it's actually worse when people joyfully smile while they sabre-rattle, or advocate other harmful/dangerous policies..
quote:I'm sure that was deliberate. We all know what happens when you roll your eyes on camera.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult. ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:It seems like the Republican party is flailing, procedurally speaking. From the article*:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's an interesting article on how New GOP rules on the election may give Trump the nomination or at least be a power broker.
quote:Those who remember the 2008 post-mortem will recall that the Republicans concluded that McCain's early securing of the nomination was harmful to his electability, since the ongoing Democratic primaries kept the public focused on Clinton and Obama. So in 2012 the Republican primaries went much longer than typical with a wide field of candidates and, after another defeat, the conclusion was that they needed "to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight", in the words of Nagourney and Martin's Times article. I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
When gloomy Republican Party leaders regrouped after President Obama’s 2012 re-election, they were intent on enhancing the party’s chances of winning back the White House. The result: new rules to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight, and to make certain the Republican standard-bearer is not pulled too far to the right before Election Day.
quote:Not mentioned in the article, but something to keep in mind, is that on the Democratic side current members of Congress and Governors are superdelegates, so their endorsement actually translates into a vote at the convention (though not weighted in the same way as 538 counts them). Former presidents, vice presidents, house speakers, and a few other leadership positions are also superdelegates. In 2008 Barack Obama rather famously spent a lot of time lobbying superdelegates before the primary election process got underway, effectively stealing a march on Clinton and forcing her to fight an uphill battle throughout the primaries.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a '538' insight.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
quote:Once considered a top-tier contender, and he's gone before a single primary vote is cast.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has suspended his presidential campaign, effectively ending a once-promising GOP presidential bid that collapsed amid tepid debate performances and other missteps.
"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top," Walker said in a brief speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday evening. "With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately."
quote:Considering that Walker claims God told him to run in the first place this isn't surprising. From God's similar message to Rick Perry telling him to run this time around I think the only thing to conclude is that God gets his kicks by watching these guys flame out spectacularly in the polls. I think He told four different candidates to run last time, including Michele Bachmann.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
quote:Well, no, not really! If that were the case, rock solid conservatives like Walker would be in the laager and dubious fly-by-nights like Trump would be out. But it's the other way round!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A circling of the wagons?
I hadn't thought about it much before, but there may be something in the concept of a "laager mentality" within the GOP.
quote:one for the quotes file.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Remember, if God tells you to run in the Republican presidential primaries He's probably just doing it for the lulz.
quote:I wish God would have a chat with Donald Trump. (Maybe he has, and the Donald just thinks he knows better.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I missed it. Where is it?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Did anyone notice the "posted by" credit?!
Hilarious!
quote:Yeah, the fundamental errors here are mind-blowing. As is the notion that a successful, educated African-American is waxing nostalgic over America's supposedly "Christian" (and slave-owning) founding fathers.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And in other news:
"Ben Carson Preaches Theocracy At Georgia Megachurch" (Patheos)
quote:Pantone numbers?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
quote:If I remember my history, paper bags are usually involved.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
"whiter people"?
How is one's degree of whiteness determined? I'd like to know exactly how white I am since that's very, very important, so please tell me your criteria.
quote:DMC.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Pantone numbers?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
quote:BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*. Your backlogged applications to various country clubs will now be processed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
quote:Another example of American assimilation via naming:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US there are honorary white people. This is nearly always closed to black people (google the word 'octoroon' if you like). Occasionally achieved by intermarriage, but more often tincture of time is responsible. A batch of immigrants (Chinese, Irish) come in and in spite of vehement discrimination and outright violence hang on, keep their noses down, and assimilate like fury, using tactics like naming the kids.
quote:From The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.
Superman, you don't think he's Jewish? Coming over from the old country, changing his name like that. Clark Kent, only a Jew would pick a name like that for himself.
quote:For much of U.S. history, it wasn't enough to be caucasian to be socially acceptable. One had to be a certain kind of caucasian. This excluded Europeans of Irish, Jewish, Southern and Eastern European descent and it meant they often faced descrimination and negative social attitudes. These attitudes only changed with time, assimilation, and other things. This is what some people mean when they talk of certain ethnic groups "becoming white."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, Brenda. I think you'll have to explain this to us non-Americans. I accept that the Chinese are Chinese. But wherever else they may be on the social ladder as one time immigrants, if you are Irish, Italian or Jewish - or for that matter Ukrainian, Litvak or Swedish, all are white. If that is not the case, then 'white' isn't being used with quite the same meaning as the rest of the world understands it.
quote:I had no idea looking at him how he occupies his imagination.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
quote:He looks like an old white guy to me.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Who suggested that there were visual cues?
quote:I was once present at a conversation where most of the participants were of Ukrainian origin (some from the US, and others from Canada) who were discussing their cousin, who had married a white girl, although his previous spouse had been "one of us."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes 'white' in this context actually doesn't have much to do with skin color. It has more to do with being accepted in the main culture.
quote:Oh, please. You make a Seinfeld reference and then try to pretend you didn't know he was Jewish? That dog won't hunt.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up! ...
What exactly was the visual cue that I missed that identified him as Jewish?
quote:In all honesty, I can't see myself voting for any of the Republicans this year, but at least they are putting up a fight. Can anyone really take on Clinton, is anyone actually going to try, and what's the point of the debates if they don't?
Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, a Republican Senator, and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar. Bartender looks them over and says, “Christ, this is 60 percent of the Democratic presidential campaign field? You m***********s make Richard Nixon look like Leon Trotsky.” Then Jim Webb knifes him, because Jim Webb is a f******g maniac.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack ....
quote:CSM - Bernie Sanders
“I’m very proud to say, I’ve never run a negative political ad in my entire life, and I’ve been attacked a whole lot,” Sanders responded.
quote:Are you implying something about Clinton?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Since he's not a Christian, it just might be because he's decent.
quote:It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
quote:Given the criticisms Sanders has leveled at Clinton's proposed policies (her previous TPP stance, her support of the Iraq War, her support of the surveillance state, etc.), I can only take this to mean you think Sanders should go on the personal attack against Hillary Clinton. Something along the lines of "you look stupid and girls have cooties", perhaps?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Was the Democratic debate too nice and unified?
I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack, as he clearly needs to do if he is going to peel off enough votes from Clinton to get the nomination.
quote:Just in case anyone was actually wondering whether Carson's campaign was a serious political effort or just a PR stunt.
Republican presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson has put his public campaign events on hold for two more weeks to go on book tour for his new tome “A More Perfect Union” and catch up on fundraising events.
quote:Never said it was new. But the difference, as far as I can ascertain, is the remarks quoted in that video seem very apparently hyperbolic. The attacks of today much less so.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
quote:Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
quote:Yes. The old standard for the media used to be "bread and circuses", but it does seem that the need for bread gets put more and more on the back burner. Or, worse, the circus show is presented as though it was bread. That's bad for democracy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly the American media seems to be pining for something like that. All the back-and-forth, will-he-won't-he speculation about Joe Biden is their form of wishful thinking that they won't have to cover a policy debate and can instead cover a Reality TV-style clash of personalities, which is a lot easier. The Republican primaries have spoiled them!
quote:No it's not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... And this is interesting. ...
quote:With the name recognition of a presidential run, there is absolutely a lot of money to be made on the speaking circuit, and a far far easier gig than a real job like being president. For Republicans there also is the very real possibility of parlaying that name recognition into a very well paid and equally cushy gig as Fox News commentator, as Huckabee and Palin have done. Gingrich spent most of his run last time on his book tour, very clearly that was his real agenda. The vast majority of the GOP candidates, and possibly a chunk of the Dems as well, seem to have these sort of auxiliary but far more lucrative money-making schemes in mind.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:For the last few years, we've had a run of Republican elected officials laboring under the explicit mantra that "government is the problem." Thus they have no interest whatsoever in seeing government work-- to actually solve problems. And, big surprise, what we have found is a government officials from appointed lackeys (remember "good job, Brownie"?) to Congress who prove the proposition thru their utter incompetence.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:Saw a snippet of a programme in which John Cleese stated that democracy is dead. I'm not sure he was completely wrong.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's bad for democracy.
quote:{Cue The Man Who Rules The Universe, from the H2G2 books, enter stage right.}
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:Or maybe we will:
Jim Webb will end his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination at a press conference Tuesday, according to two sources with knowledge of the decision.
quote:
The former Virginia senator who launched a longshot presidential bid earlier this year is considering an independent run, according to his campaign.
quote:Probably Imperial Earth:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget which Arthur C. Clarke SF novel it was in which the future World President was always chosen from people who had other careers and did not want the job. (The World Computer did the choosing, which probably was worth its construction right there.) The idea was that if you did not want the job you did it well in hopes of getting time off for good behavior. Running for the job explicitly disqualified you for ever.
quote:
For the last century, almost all top political appointments [on the planet Earth] had been made by random computer selection from the pool of individuals who had the necessary qualifications. It had taken the human race several thousand years to realize that there were some jobs that should never be given to the people who volunteered for them, especially if they showed too much enthusiasm. As one shrewd political commentator had remarked: “We want a President who has to be carried screaming and kicking into the White House — but will then do the best job he possibly can, so that he’ll get time off for good behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sounds just like jury duty.
quote:From a Democratic perspective, the only decent reasons for a Biden run for the presidency at this late stage of the campaign-forming process would be:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Joe Biden will not be running.
quote:Eh? I'd say it's great news for them.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bad news for the GOP.
quote:The opposite. There's almost no way he could have won the primary, but he would have been a lot more likely to win the general.
If Biden could somehow have won the primary, he would have been soundly defeated by several, if not most, of the clowns.
quote:Why? (Seriously, why would you think that?)
This has been a great couple of weeks for Hillary. Tomorrow is likely to bring even more good news.
quote:
The contentious exchange between Gowdy and Cummings underscores the increasing pressure on the committee to produce evidence of misconduct by Clinton or forever be labeled a taxpayer-funded political attack designed to damage her presidential campaign.
quote:I'll do better than that. I'll source the image.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a great image making the rounds, of a comic-book-art Hillary, unsmiling and steely. She is saying, "You don't understand. I am not locked in here with you. You are locked in here with me." (ID that quote!)
quote:
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he announced at a Washington event Friday.
"As you know I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace," Chafee said at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington. "But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today. I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
quote:"We"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
quote:It's from a report released by the demcocrats on the house select committee on Benghazi. Page 28, towards the bottom,
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:"We"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
Can you point to the exact testimony where this was established?
quote:Whatever this may do in the primaries in my state in about 5 months or in the general election is early to tell, but probably not much. Folks are talking about the beloved Carolina Panthers, not politics. What is it, anyway, maybe 90% or more of the voters vote the way they always have?
Later that afternoon, Secretary Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil regarding the events in Cairo and Libya. The notes from that call indicate that the Secretary relayed information consistent with reporting at the time: “We know that the
attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” The notes also indicate that she acknowledged that Ansar al-Sharia reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks: “Your not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
quote:That link shows Fox News being irresponsible in their reporting. Fox News! Someone get a fan and smelling salts, I think I shall faint.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:From the memo itself:
Jeb Bush, once a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, is slashing pay across the board for his struggling campaign as he attempts to regain traction just 100 days before the party’s first nominating contest.
The campaign is removing some senior staff from the payroll, parting ways with some consultants, and downsizing its Miami headquarters to save more than $1 million per month and cut payroll by 40 percent this week, according to Bush campaign officials who requested anonymity to speak about internal changes. Senior leadership positions remain unchanged.
The campaign is also cutting back 45 percent of its budget, except for dollars earmarked for TV advertising and spending for voter contacts, such as phone calls and mailers. Some senior-level staff and consultants will continue to work with the campaign on a volunteer basis, while other junior-level consultants, primarily in finance but including other areas, will be let go, the officials said.
quote:For some reason this reads to me like a snippier version of Hirohito's declaration that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage". I'm actually a bit surprised that J.E.B. isn't better at "the family business".
It's no secret that the contours of this race have changed from what was anticipated at the start. We would be less than forthcoming if we said we predicted in June that a reality television star supporting Canadian-style single-payer health care and partial-birth abortion would be leading the GOP primary.
quote:That's, uh, pretty candid. And graphic.
"Belt tightening is one thing, but sometimes you need to change pants," said a Republican strategist who insisted on anonymity to speak candidly.
quote:Hillary and the admin knew better yet kept pumping crap for some reason about a video. Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:One thing was made clear during Clinton's testimony yesterday.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:I agree with this statement. When will the Benghazi committee admit to their true motivations, then?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
quote:She spoke these words at the reception of the bodies of the dead men from the outhouse in Benghazi. Near enough to the coffins and the families to have spit on them.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's what Hillary said at Andrews AFB:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
It seems to me that she has clearly separated Benghazi from the video-imspired attacks at embassies.
quote:According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
quote:Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
quote:It didn't turn up empty. Hillary and the administration told the American people things that they knew were not true. Hillary maintained the lie to the father receiving the body of his dead son. She has no character.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
quote:Charles Woods related a number of colorful details about that occasion in his interview on The Blaze with Glenn Beck, including
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
quote:Tyrone Woods' mother, however, described a very different atmosphere in a Facebook posting shortly afterward:
Mr. Woods [said] that the President seemed cold and distant at the time, saying: 'Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish.'
"His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse."
"An hour later, he [Biden] came over and approached me," Woods told Beck. "And in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, [he asked,] 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"
quote:
The entire afternoon was overpowering and unreal. Little did I know that I would find myself in a reception room being comforted, hugged, and, yes, even kissed by the President of the United States. Along with the President, there was Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General and Mrs. Colin Powell. They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.
Each of them commended Tyrone for his courage, his bravery, and his ultimate sacrifice for his country. While squeezing Secretary Clinton's hand and choking back tears, I told her that what worried me was that my son died possibly thinking that he had failed in the mission he was to carry out, that of protecting Ambassador Stevens and the people in the compound.
Looking me firmly in the eye, she told me that my son did not fail. She called him a hero and that if not for him, the 30 people inside the consulate would not have made it out. He was doing his job, fighting for his life, putting others ahead of his own safety, but then that was his job, which he did well.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
quote:Fear serves conservatives. Always.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
quote:Silly girl. You stand behind whichever one serves at the moment. They have their heads perfectly in this. Context is of the devil, convenience is heavenly.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They really haven't got their heads round this old testament, new testament thing have they ?
quote:Much as I dislike Huckabee's policy positions, blatantly misrepresenting what he said really isn't doing the left any favors.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
I'm assuming that debt slavery is not a dead horse. Redirect me if I'm wrong.
quote:That's true. But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Fear serves conservatives. Always.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
quote:I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
quote:So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
quote:Sanders is the one who's starting to look surprisingly electable. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
quote:I would not call it impossible, as he is highly thought of by the anti-government element in the Republican party, but his popularity is low
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
From outside this choice, that's really scary.
quote:And these ally naturally with conservative governments. Though, to be fair, they are unfortunately not anathema to liberal governments.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
quote:And we can show that this is demonstrably false. Were it true, we would already have supply in excess of need. The very fact that private giving plus support offered by government is insufficient illustrates this clearly.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus some kind of trusting notion that voluntary redistribution of wealth via individual generosity is all that is really necessary.
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:Arnold won a in a recall.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:This election is so weird.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:So what if he's an actor? So was Reagan. At least Franken was funny.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:You may have a point.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:This election is so weird.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
AFAICT the people most likely to win their party's nomination are also the people most likely to lose the general election.
Which leaves us with a write-in vote for Omar....
quote:I guess that covers the vanity, but not the creepiness. I don't think creepiness builds confidence. And he sure comes across as creepy to me too. A very strange man.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:But then, given 3 years to look, the Republicans couldn't find anyone better to contest the next election in 2006 than Arnold, so your fixation on the fact that he first won in a recall seems to excuse nothing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
The dims have as much history electing idiots like him as the republicans do. And they did it in a straight up election, not in the process of throwing some other dipshit out.
quote:I don't care if he's an actor. I was responding to this:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So what if he's an actor?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura...
quote:Video please.
Originally posted by mousethief:
At least Franken was funny.
quote:Interestingly Franken has been much more of a workhorse than a show pony since his election to the Senate. For example, this incident where criticized Republican laziness on the judiciary committee demonstrates his dedication to his legislative job. Since his election Franken has missed 0.6% of roll call votes, which is a lot better than any of the four current Republican Senators running for President: Cruz 6.7%, Graham 4.1%, Paul 3.4%, and Rubio 6.7%. Those numbers exclude roll call votes taken in 2015, since running for president (and planning a run for the presidency) is a time consuming process and would artificially inflate those numbers even further. (For those who are curious, Santorum missed 2.1% of all roll call votes that occurred during his two terms in the U.S. Senate.)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:Ok, I suppose. More so than Hillary, of course. She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mere Nick
Purely as a matter of interest, how do you rate Gowdy's veracity?
quote:Hard to say. It would be difficult to have a job investigating certain matters and you don't have all information.
And his competence as Committee Chair?
quote:Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
quote:Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
quote:Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
quote:Didn't one of the idiots admit this on camera prior to the hearing?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gowdy is not at all Senator McCarthy the Second, but perhaps they do have one thing in common. When you are over-reaching, it eventually becomes clear that that is what you are doing. But in this case it didn't need an Ed Murrow the Second to point it out. Just the actions in that hearing.
quote:In my university days, a Trotskyite acquaintance used to refer to Capitalist Faction No.1 and Capitalist Faction No.2. My problem was that I couldn't remember which was No.1 and which No.2 (which, perhaps, might have been the point).
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
Or perhaps you'd consider the courtesy in discussion and debate of referring to each party by their self-chosen appellation? What do you say?
quote:Can we come up with something else? Cunts have warmth and depth.
Originally posted by Leaf:
Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair....
quote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this kind of winners-and-losers tier system exactly the kind of thing the Republican party advocates for everyone else? Rand Paul, of all people, shouldn't be complaining about this realization of the libertarian dream where the "makers" (those with high poll numbers) don't have to share with the moochers and takers who can't get out of the single digits.
The drama began Tuesday afternoon as RNC officials led campaigns on a walk-through of the debate site. After touring the stage, candidates got a peek at what their greenrooms looked like.
Trump was granted a spacious room, complete with plush chairs and a flat-screen TV. Marco Rubio got a theater-type room, packed with leather seats for him and his team of aides. Carly Fiorina’s room had a Jacuzzi.
Then there was Chris Christie, whose small space was dominated by a toilet. So was Rand Paul’s.
quote:I think I feel a song coming on...
Ooh! Let's all go into the hot tub!
quote:You could be thinking of the moment in 1976 when Ford declared eastern Europe to be free of Soviet domination.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re weird presidential debates:
There was one--Carter/Ford?--where one guy called the other a communist, then "apologized" by saying it was a Freudian slip. (I.e., he really meant it.)
I think *maybe* Ford said it.
quote:Note that the way Trump sees it, evangelicals owe him their vote (well, I'm guessing he thinks everyone owes him their vote) and that they've "let [him] down a little bit" by not giving him the votes he's entitled to.
"Iowa, will you get your numbers up, please?" Trump begged on Tuesday night, something he rarely does. "Will you get these numbers up? I promise you: I will do such a good job."
<snip>
"I do well with the evangelicals, but the evangelicals let me down a little bit," Trump said. "I don't know what I did."
<snip>
"You know what, people might say: 'It's terrible. He's a terrible person, a terrible human being. I shouldn't, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.' Okay, that's fine," Trump said. "I'm actually a nice person."
<snip>
"What the hell are you people doing to me?" he demanded.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:He needs something more spectacular. And in such a way that he can blame someone else for it.
Brenda Clough: The traditional statement is " ... to spend more time with my family." Trump may have difficulty making this fly.
quote:Being ignored? I don’t think he’ll have to worry for a while--when it comes to generating entertainment on a slow news day, he is unparalleled. He can rail against the media, but they love him.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think there's only one thing Trump is afraid of.
quote:I mentioned earlier that J.E.B. Bush had recently cut staff salaries. Either this new slogan is payback for the cuts or these people are still drastically overpaid.
To most American voters (especially the younger ones), Jeb Bush’s new slogan will mostly just sound uninspired, and slightly reminiscent of Bob the Builder. But for pretty much anyone even mildly aware of British popular culture, the words “Jeb Can Fix It,” soon to be plastered on every surface his dying campaign can touch, will bring to mind just one thing: Jimmy Savile, one of the most prolific child abusers in the history of entertainment.
<snip>
That slogan is now inexorably linked, in the British popular imagination, to a depraved and vile criminal, whose unconscionable acts were covered up by powerful people for decades. And also, now, to Jeb Bush.
quote:Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Long form ruminations on this point.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
quote:With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:His image certainly, but since the definition of "Santorum" [vaguely NSFW] was developed in mid-2003 and Santorum wasn't up for re-election until late 2006 (which he lost by a margin almost unheard of for an incumbent senator not under indictment nor involved in a sex scandal) it wasn't directly an attempt to sabotage any political campaign of his. The context was Santorum's comments on the then-pending case of Lawrence v. Texas, where it was decided that laws criminalizing various consensual sex acts were unconstitutional. Santorum took a different approach than the Supreme Court eventually took, arguing that that states should have the authority to jail anyone for having sex with a same-gendered partner. It was this, coupled with is his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality and incest, that roused the ire of Dan Savage, who publicized what he felt was the best Santorum neologism* submitted by his readers. Savage later pointed out that not every anti-gay politician gets this treatment at his hands. It was Santorum's advocacy of prison for gays that really put him over the top, as far as Savage was concerned.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:As I observed earlier, if God tells you to run in the Republican Presidential primaries, it's probably so He can have a good laugh at your expense.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Again, far elsewhere on the net, a friend of mine is insisting that Ben Carson is ordained by Jesus to be president.
quote:Really? Why would the Bush campaign possibly care that his new slogan bears a vague resemblance to the name of a long-defunct British TV show hosted by someone with zero name recognition in the US even after his pedophilia scandal?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:Apropos of very little I simply wish to opine that "reologism" is a supremely fine word.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
*I'm not sure "neologism" is the best term for re-purposing an existing word. It might be better to call it a "reologism", except that term is itself a neologism (and an inelegant one at that)
quote:If "now" means 1992, that's correct.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:Right. He even wrote way back in 1992 that he didn't.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:A distinction with out a difference since it means the same thing.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero.
quote:There are two types of nomination: congressional and service-connected.
However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
quote:Politico has greatly helped his campaign by running this sorry excuse for a hit piece on him.
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
quote:Certainly not a dis-qualifier for a potential POTUS. (Or even a sitting one)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
....he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
quote:I think that had anyone in Jeb's campaign raised this as a potential red flag, that person should have been fired. There can't be more than a vanishingly small number of Americans (let alone Republican primary voters) who know or care about the existence of that 20 year old foreign TV show, and anyone who is aware of it is extremely unlikely to be of any help in winning the election. This connection is possibly the least problematic thing about that stupid slogan.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
quote:Interesting - the writer makes a reasonable case (I think) for why his West Point story shouldn't matter to voters, but his pyramid ideas should.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A more cogent and in-depth article about Carson's woes.
quote:I don't think so. In 2004 George W. Bush won New Mexico by 0.8 percentage points. In 2008 Barack Obama carried the state by a 15 percentage point margin. Similarly Bush won Iowa by 0.7 percentage points in 2004 and McCain lost it by 9.5 percentage points in 2008. These are both swings of more than ten percentage points. When you're talking about state-level data compared across different electoral cycles, a swing of ten percentage points isn't that unheard of in U.S. elections.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
quote:I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016. I'm basing this on the observation that the states don't really change their partisan "lean" that much from one cycle to the next (Wyoming is "more Republican" than Texas, which is "more Republican" than Ohio, etc.) By ranking them according to margin, that gives a rough idea of how much the losing party would have to "shift" the electorate from where it was last time to achieve victory this time around.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
quote:In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
quote:States with the lowest margins (in absolute terms) would be the ones to 'flip' one way or the other by shifting the electorate, so I'm not sure there's a better term. For example, the electorate as a whole shifted ~9.7 percentage points between the 2004 presidential election and the election of 2008 (nearly my whole ten point margin for indicating which states are most at risk of flipping, if you prefer that locution to the term "battleground"). Thus you had states like Virginia going from picking Bush II by 8.2 percentage points in 2004 to going for Obama by a 6.3 percentage point margin in 2008.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
quote:sigh.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do.
quote:I have often suspected that when I get an obnoxious, in-the-middle-of-dinner phone call telling me to vote for Candidate A, that the call is actually from Candidate B's supporters, hoping I'll get so annoyed at Candidate A's harassment that I'll vote for Candidate B.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?')
I double dog dare you! That's definitely big block of cheese information. And also worthy of the Quotes file.
quote:It's no more your civic duty to be polite to cold-calling canvassers as it is to cold-calling tele or door to door sales personnel. If you think they are canvassing for somebody you regard as useless or a scoundrel, you're as civically entitled to tell them so as you are to tell the people with weird foreign accents who ring you up pretending to be the Windows Technical Department that they are scammers.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is depressing, but I try to regard it as my civic duty. I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not) and I must do my part to help. The menfolk in the family, who are possibly more imbued with the spirit of Christ, try to prevent me from being unkind to cold callers, but there are so many. When I am tired a preprogrammed response kicks in (suggestions welcome: I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?') When I am tanned, rested and ready I take the call as a request for improv theater.
quote:Thirty years ago Virginia was bright red, and had been virtually all my life.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not)
quote:It would have been more accurate to say:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not)
quote:Prior to 2008 Virginia had gone to the Democratic Presidential nominee exactly once in 56 years.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
In 1985, Virginia elected a Democratic Governor with 55% of the vote.
quote:Politicians and political calls are exempt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--
Have you signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry?
quote:...and during many of those years, Virginia had a Democratic Governor.
Originally posted by romanlion:
[QUOTE]Prior to 2008 Virginia had gone to the Democratic Presidential nominee exactly once in 56 years.
quote:That’s true. Even though Virginia has only 13 electoral votes, it has enough play that both candidates will be thinking about it. I’m a bit surprised you’re getting as much attention during the primary season as you are, though. In Georgia we are also part of the big Southern primary day, and I haven’t seen a whole lot yet.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It doesn't really matter, about the past. This coming year, Virginia is a battleground state. And the battle seems to be fought on the phone lines.
quote:Not that surprising. Any Super Tuesday* state is bound to receive a lot of attention. For example, Hillary Clinton's chances of winning Georgia on November 8 (vanishingly small) don't really matter if she can't beat Bernie Sanders there on March 1.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
That’s true. Even though Virginia has only 13 electoral votes, it has enough play that both candidates will be thinking about it. I’m a bit surprised you’re getting as much attention during the primary season as you are, though. In Georgia we are also part of the big Southern primary day, and I haven’t seen a whole lot yet.
quote:Think there would be less purple if that were exactly true.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Blue big city mouse, red country and suburban mouse.
quote:But even getting rid of sales calls would at least cut down on the threat to Brenda's mandrills!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Politicians and political calls are exempt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--
Have you signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry?
quote:That's not what the map shows. It shows that there are very, very few red counties. It shows there are very many more blue counties. It shows the vast majority of rural/suburban US as various shades of purple, indicating that most communities are split between voting Dem and Rep, no matter who ends up walking away with the prize at the end of it.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Blue big city mouse, red country and suburban mouse.
quote:So who do you like?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm totally captivated by tonight's Democratic debate.
quote:What could be more dimocratic than that?!
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Look at you with the identity politics!
quote:Ask any Millennial...
And 52 is old now?
quote:And so your intended criticism evaporates into nothingness...
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:What could be more dimocratic than that?!
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Look at you with the identity politics!
quote:My 8-year-old nephew thinks pretty nearly everybody is old, but he's a cute kid so I don't hold it against him.
quote:Ask any Millennial...
And 52 is old now?
quote:Without denying that the Republican debates have been a little over the top, part of this comes down to the fact that everyone on the stage at the Democratic debates knows who the nominee is going to be. The stakes are much lower.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm totally captivated by tonight's Democratic debate. It may be my bias and/or the traguc events in Paris, but the questions and answers are in stark contrast to the Republican "debates".
an exception to your dislike for old white people?quote:Oh, heck, that's nothing new! In the '60s/'70s, it was "Never trust anyone over 30!" And did you ever see the movie/series "Logan's Run"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Ask any Millennial...
And 52 is old now?
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So who do you like?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm totally captivated by tonight's Democratic debate.
Old and white? Or....
Wait, that's the only option....
quote:RL has had this particular race-based bee in his bonnet for at least a month now. It seems to be the only thing he's really noticed about the Democratic field.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Look at you with the identity politics!
quote:Which is funny 'cause most of the people in the videos of GOP campaign gatherings are old white people.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So who do you like?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm totally captivated by tonight's Democratic debate.
Old and white? Or....
Wait, that's the only option....quote:RL has had this particular race-based bee in his bonnet for at least a month now. It seems to be the only thing he's really noticed about the Democratic field.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Look at you with the identity politics!
quote:Just because God tells you to run doesn't mean He's saying you'll win. I'm convinced God just needs the lulz.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Thank God. Oh, but wait. Wasn't it God who told Jindal to run? Same as Huckabee, Bush, Cruz, and so on.
quote:Over fascism in the GOP? Not likely, considering he was a fascist.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Either way, Ole Abe must be turning in his grave.
quote:This is a great question. Certain contituents notwithstanding, I think the more seasoned GOP leaders are embarrassed by the guy. I read the occasional murmur in this direction, but am not sure why the Repubs are not more strenuous in their distancing-- perhaps they fear the poll numbers. Or maybe they are hoping Trump will send the majority of the GOP fleeing to some more moderate candidate, come actual election time.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
The BBC are reporting that "following the Paris attacks, such a view has become accepted wisdom among the Republican presidential candidates - and Mr Trump is once again taking credit." Is that how it appears to Shipmates in the US - that GOP candidates are standing in line to endorse Mr Trump's policy of sending back refugees to face persecution?
quote:The problem is the whole "clown car" trope is no joke-- the Repubs really don't have a non-dorky candidate. Petraeus is out of the picture, McCain won't run (He might take it, even the Dems like him)...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps distancing from Trump, rather than confronting him, is the best way to avoid alienating potential supporters?
Personally I think confronting Trump is the right thing to do. Whether it would win the candidacy - well, that's a different question isn't it?
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Distancing yourself from Trump means disavowing his positions - but they're pretty popular among Republicans, so that's problematic for anyone running for the Republican nomination.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps distancing from Trump, rather than confronting him, is the best way to avoid alienating potential supporters?
Personally I think confronting Trump is the right thing to do. Whether it would win the candidacy - well, that's a different question isn't it?
code:All Reps Dems
28 12 46 Proceed with the plan to resettle 10,000 refugees without religious screening
11 11 9 Resettle only Christian refugees from Syria
53 69 36 Do not accept any Syrian refugees into the U.S.
8 7 9 Not sure
quote:Not this Democrat! Living in Arizona, I cringe every time I see him mouthing off in the newspaper.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
McCain won't run (He might take it, even the Dems like him)...
quote:I'd move to Canada.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, but if someone held a gun to your head and asked you to pick him or Trump, it'd be no contest, right?
Boy, what a fantastic campaign slogan...
quote:There was McCain 1.0-- the warm, funny, reasonable conservative who was a favorite guest of Jon Stewarts for all those reasons. Then there was McCain 2.0-- the guy who after being shafted in the worst way by Rove in 2000 (the warm up to the swift-boating thing) decided to just throw it in and play the game the way the GOP kingmakers wanted-- but then in the end didn't have the stomach for it. Then there's McCain 3.0-- the guy we've seen since-- the bitter old man sitting on the porch yelling at the kids to get off the lawn. It's sad.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Not this Democrat! Living in Arizona, I cringe every time I see him mouthing off in the newspaper.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
McCain won't run (He might take it, even the Dems like him)...
(And anyone stupid enough to choose Sarah Palin as a running mate is too stupid to be President -- or Senator.)
quote:I have a feeling Canada is battening down the hatches as we speak.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I'd move to Canada.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, but if someone held a gun to your head and asked you to pick him or Trump, it'd be no contest, right?
Boy, what a fantastic campaign slogan...
quote:According to the poll you quoted they're moderately popular among Democrats as well
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Distancing yourself from Trump means disavowing his positions - but they're pretty popular among Republicans,
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps distancing from Trump, rather than confronting him, is the best way to avoid alienating potential supporters?
quote:Sure - though perhaps somewhat less popular than in the UK. I'm not sure why you're
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:According to the poll you quoted they're moderately popular among Democrats as well
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Distancing yourself from Trump means disavowing his positions - but they're pretty popular among Republicans,
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps distancing from Trump, rather than confronting him, is the best way to avoid alienating potential supporters?
about this.
quote:I don't understand why his opponents aren't making more of his previous massive debt problems. Given people's worries about federal economic management.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Now Trump is issuing approval of beating up a Black Lives Matter protester at his rally. Washington Post article here.
Truly a fascist, can't allow any dissenting opinions or beliefs.
quote:How could debt problems possibly be a dis-qualifier for a candidate?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:I don't understand why his opponents aren't making more of his previous massive debt problems. Given people's worries about federal economic management.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Now Trump is issuing approval of beating up a Black Lives Matter protester at his rally. Washington Post article here.
Truly a fascist, can't allow any dissenting opinions or beliefs.
I mean seriously what individual gets 1 billion dollars into debt ?. The corporate bankruptcies are also pretty massive.
quote:It is a disqualifier if the candidate is asking for votes on the grounds that he's a shrewd businessperson. Making money on real estate is one of the easiest ways of making money - my next-door neighbour is about to make $50,000 flipping his apartment after just 3 weeks of renos. It takes a real idiot to run a casino into the ground.
Originally posted by romanlion:
How could debt problems possibly be a dis-qualifier for a candidate?
It's more like a prerequisite, and good luck to the eventual winner if they hope to outdo their predecessor on debt.
quote:One of the first news reports I heard stated that a Syrian passport was found next to one of the bombers. Because everyone who is going to commit a terrorist attack takes someone else's passport with them, and they put it in a safe spot before blowing themselves up.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Its as if everyone has failed to notice the supposed 'migrant' plot leader was a belgian citizen.
quote:The problem is that there is no "more moderate candidate" in the GOP field this year. On questions like immigration or race there's not a lot of policy difference between Trump and his GOP competitors. The real difference is that Trump "says the quiet parts out loud", unlike the traditional reliance on dog whistles. The only major policy difference between Trump and the rest of the Republican field is his position on Social Security. Every other candidate wants to cut the program (which is what the Republican leadership wants), while Trump says he wants in preserve or expand the program (which is what the typical Republican voter wants). On that issue he's to the "left" of the Republican field.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Certain contituents notwithstanding, I think the more seasoned GOP leaders are embarrassed by the guy. I read the occasional murmur in this direction, but am not sure why the Repubs are not more strenuous in their distancing -- perhaps they fear the poll numbers. Or maybe they are hoping Trump will send the majority of the GOP fleeing to some more moderate candidate, come actual election time.
quote:He's no Screaming Lord Such, but I like him!
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Vermin Supreme in 2016!
quote:Yeah, that's what I meant about the "clown car" jokes being really unfunny. I was allowing for the idea that the moderates are frantically grooming some eleventh hour hero, to be revealed in the future.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The problem is that there is no "more moderate candidate" in the GOP field this year. .
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Certain contituents notwithstanding, I think the more seasoned GOP leaders are embarrassed by the guy. I read the occasional murmur in this direction, but am not sure why the Repubs are not more strenuous in their distancing -- perhaps they fear the poll numbers. Or maybe they are hoping Trump will send the majority of the GOP fleeing to some more moderate candidate, come actual election time.
quote:For a brief moment there was a Draft Romney movement, scuttled by Mitt's refusal to consider it. I'm picturing something like this.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Yeah, that's what I meant about the "clown car" jokes being really unfunny. I was allowing for the idea that the moderates are frantically grooming some eleventh hour hero, to be revealed in the future.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem is that there is no "more moderate candidate" in the GOP field this year. .
quote:
All the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"...
and I'll whisper "forty-seven percent."
quote:He wasn't in debt because of his campaign expenses, but because he drastically mismanaged personal and business finances.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:How could debt problems possibly be a dis-qualifier for a candidate?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:I don't understand why his opponents aren't making more of his previous massive debt problems. Given people's worries about federal economic management.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Now Trump is issuing approval of beating up a Black Lives Matter protester at his rally. Washington Post article here.
Truly a fascist, can't allow any dissenting opinions or beliefs.
I mean seriously what individual gets 1 billion dollars into debt ?. The corporate bankruptcies are also pretty massive.
It's more like a prerequisite, and good luck to the eventual winner if they hope to outdo their predecessor on debt.
quote:
"I would like anyone who is listening to consider some thoughts that I've paraphrased from the words of German Pastor Martin Niemoller.
You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's OK to rough up black protesters because you're not one. And you might not care that Donald Trump wants to suppress journalist because you're not one. But think about this, if he keeps going and he actually becomes President, he might just get around to you and you better hope that's there someone left to help you."
quote:I think it's valid to carve out a Niemöller exception to Godwin's Law.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Interestingly,John Kasich goes full-on Godwin in addressing Trump. There's no denying it's a "Godwin" but can anyone also deny that it's spot on?
quote:
"I would like anyone who is listening to consider some thoughts that I've paraphrased from the words of German Pastor Martin Niemoller.
You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's OK to rough up black protesters because you're not one. And you might not care that Donald Trump wants to suppress journalist because you're not one. But think about this, if he keeps going and he actually becomes President, he might just get around to you and you better hope that's there someone left to help you."
quote:Fausto, please can you explain exactly what you mean by that, to a foreigner who finds Trump a very frightening nightmare, but as a foreigner does not get either reference?
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it's valid to carve out a Niemöller exception to Godwin's Law.
quote:I'm not Fausto, but I assume he was referring to this famous quote from Niemöller.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Fausto, please can you explain exactly what you mean by that, to a foreigner who finds Trump a very frightening nightmare, but as a foreigner does not get either reference?
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it's valid to carve out a Niemöller exception to Godwin's Law.
quote:"Godwin's Law" has been expressed various ways, but it's usually some variant on the proposition that the first debater to resort to comparing his/her opponent to Hitler loses. I am suggesting that invoking Niemöller's "First they came..." quotation isn't quite the same thing and can therefore be deemed an exception which keeps Kasich's comments within the realm of acceptability, even though indeed Niemöller originally was talking about the Nazis. If you want to get all formal and logical about it, I would call it an appeal to moral authority and a call to moral vigilance rather than a direct ad hominem attack.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Fausto, please can you explain exactly what you mean by that, to a foreigner who finds Trump a very frightening nightmare, but as a foreigner does not get either reference?
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it's valid to carve out a Niemöller exception to Godwin's Law.
quote:Yes, exactly that.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:"Godwin's Law" has been expressed various ways, but it's usually some variant on the proposition that the first debater to resort to comparing his/her opponent to Hitler loses. I am suggesting that invoking Niemöller's "First they came..." quotation isn't quite the same thing and can therefore be deemed an exception which keeps Kasich's comments within the realm of acceptability, even though indeed Niemöller originally was talking about the Nazis. If you want to get all formal and logical about it, I would call it an appeal to moral authority and a call to moral vigilance rather than a direct ad hominem attack.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Fausto, please can you explain exactly what you mean by that, to a foreigner who finds Trump a very frightening nightmare, but as a foreigner does not get either reference?
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it's valid to carve out a Niemöller exception to Godwin's Law.
For some background on Niemöller and his quotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
quote:There was a hint of this in the last Republican primary, with each candidate in turn serving as the not-Romney of the moment, someone to focus the hopes of all Republicans who just didn't like Mitt Romney. Then Romney won the nomination. There seems to be a much stronger desire this time around for a non-Trump, and a lot of the Republican primaries that were winner-take-all in 2012 have switched over to proportional awarding of delegates, so some of the factors that led to the Romney coronation have been mitigated this time around.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The GOP system is set up as a coronation. The idea is that somebody emerges as the strong candidate and is crowned in a series of triumphant primaries, giving him (it is always a man) that winner look as he heads into the general election. Compare and contrast with the Democratic setup, which is ordinarily more contentious -- analogies of the circular firing squad are often evoked.
quote:Well, considering Vladimir Putin to be a member of the reality-based community is pretty fearful in and of itself.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
To contemplate what would happen if a President Trump came toe to toe against a member of the reality-based community (like say Vladimir Putin) is just too fearful to contemplate.
quote:This didn't help any of my paranoid tendencies.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe I'm getting paranoid in my old age?
quote:Preach it, sister. From this side of the pond, that looks a pretty good summary. Apparently though, 'you can still fool some of the people all of the time'. The centre of gravity of the GOP appears to be going ' bat-shit-and-outhouse-rat-crazy' as well. And I thought Sarah Palin would be the nadir. What the hell do I know ...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
... a bat-shit-and-outhouse-rat-crazy narcissist with borderline personality disorder should be kept as far away from that red button as possible.
quote:Interesting to read a biog of Kurt G:odel - he only just managed to get citizenship if the US because Einstein shut him up long enough to distract the immigration official. He was describing how (logically) the US could become a dictatorship even under the "land of the free" constitution.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The problem with the GOP choosing Trump - if they do - is not the high probability that he would be demolished in the election. It is the low probability that something incredibly damaging emerges re Hillary Clinton which provokes a backlash.
To misquote a famous quote from a previous presidential election. Even if Hillary Clinton turns out to be a louse, Donald Trump is already a proven double-louse. In the interests of the entire globe, even a very small risk of a double-louse getting into the White House gives me the shivers.
quote:And his poll numbers will probably go up.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Every time you think The Donald has hit bottom, he finds a shovel and gets lower. It's amazing.
quote:When politics is indistinguishable from the Onion...
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So Trump's just said this - the BBC reporter on the 10 o'clock news said that when they first recieved the press release they thought it was a hoax.
quote:We can now delete "borderline" and insert "malevolent".
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
..a bat-shit-and-outhouse-rat-crazy narcissist with borderline personality disorder ..
quote:Except that borderline personality disorder is an actual, diagnosable mental health condition, whereas "malevolent personality disorder" is just something made up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:We can now delete "borderline" and insert "malevolent".
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
...a bat-shit-and-outhouse-rat-crazy narcissist with borderline personality disorder ...
quote:Of course they did. This kind of thing is the reason they like Trump.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I note that some supporters have reacted favourably. I'm going to put a clothes peg on my nose and sample Fox News.
quote:
The reason is clear: There are many stupid and dangerous racists in America.
We knew that already. It's just been awhile since they've had a national candidate who's been this willing to openly pander to them.
quote:OK, will "malevolent personality" do? It isn't a disorder IMHO, just a posture in an attempt to go for the hate vote. Trump's team has seen the FN do well using this in France and they want the same, sure-fire vote winner. If he gets the nomination then the Democrats had better get the Black and Hispanic vote out on their side.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Except that borderline personality disorder is an actual, diagnosable mental health condition, whereas "malevolent personality disorder" is just something made up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:We can now delete "borderline" and insert "malevolent".
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
...a bat-shit-and-outhouse-rat-crazy narcissist with borderline personality disorder ...
quote:Yes, I was just thinking he made Marine Le Pen look halfway respectable.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It isn't a disorder IMHO, just a posture in an attempt to go for the hate vote. Trump's team has seen the FN do well using this in France and they want the same, sure-fire vote winner.
quote:ISTM, fear is the key to why Trump is popular. Hate plays well when people are scared.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But I fear enough voters actually do think such positions are respectable.
quote:
"I'm a really nice guy, believe me, I pride myself on being a nice guy ... "
quote:Having once worked closely with a politician who had no real chance of getting to the top, but who campaigned anyway (I note that he was in no way a Donald Trump, being an educated and highly-qualified progressive), we should not underestimate the heroin-like attraction of the footlights, microphone, and attentive media-- like any other addiction, it overrules whatever common sense there may have been to begin with. As one of my younger friends would say, he is in it for the ride and the rush.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think Trump probably now thinks he can make it to the white house, even if he didn't at the begining of his campaign.
quote:I would say the same thing. My theory still is that he doesn't want to become the president. In fact, this would be his biggest fear.
Augustine the Aleut: As one of my younger friends would say, he is in it for the ride and the rush.
quote:From Barnabas's link:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some reactions.
quote:Shudder. This may be how a mean-spirited, war monger like Fiorina gets in the White House. Compared to Trump, she seems reasonable and moderate. Trump and his creepy, cheering crowds are setting off all my paranoid alarms -- such as: Could the 1% be paying Trump to set up their candidate/puppet of choice?
"Trump's overreaction is as dangerous as President Obama's under-reaction."
— Carly Fiorina, former technology executive and GOP candidate for president.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
For no apparent reason I am moved to note, here, criteria 1,2, 5 & 6 of the ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder diagnosis.
quote:We're not tied to ICD or DSM when discussing personality I shouldn't think. The malevolent idea corresponds with a different description and taxonomy: Assertive/Sadistic by Theodore Millon. Particularly the phenomenological section.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK, will "malevolent personality" do? It isn't a disorder IMHO, just a posture in an attempt to go for the hate vote. Trump's team has seen the FN do well using this in France and they want the same, sure-fire vote winner. If he gets the nomination then the Democrats had better get the Black and Hispanic vote out on their side.
quote:I did wonder about this. This ego-trip will cost him more and more the longer it continues.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Part of him may be hoping that one of these things will get him out of the race.
quote:(Goldsmith demonstrating our famous English reserve there.)
Conservative Zac Goldsmith said Mr Trump's position was "repellent", and said he was "an appalling creature... one of the most malignant figures in politics".
Labour's Sadiq Khan said the billionaire "can't just be dismissed as a buffoon - his comments are outrageous, divisive and dangerous
quote:I think there might have been something in this originally, but the BBC political commentator this evening (News at 6 R4) suggested that the latest anti-Muslim initiative was probably calculated to help with the vote in Iowa (where, apparently, Cruz was showing up well in the polls).
Originally posted by passer:
Surely everybody, including Trump himself, acknowledges that he isn't going to be elected as POTUS. Based on that premise, and his great wealth, and his narcissistic personality, and his realization that he can take advantage of the free speech maxim he so abuses, he's just an everyday sociopath who's having a laugh at everyone's expense, for his own amusement, because there's no-one to stop him. Perhaps he hopes to trigger an uprising or something, without considering that such an event would almost certainly result in the loss of all the manifestations of mammon upon which he rests, and the disappearance of his hangers-on. There's a phrase in a song:
"A piece of the action, pieces of gold, everyone's paid well and does what they're told"
I do wonder who will turn up for his funeral, when that eventually comes to pass. There will be a lot of people quietly making lists of those attendees!
quote:The piece Brenda Clough linked to says that he wants to win the race, but he doesn't want to be the president. I think that's accurate.
Barnabas62: If so, then I think he may actually be "in it to win it" now, given the success of his outrageous posturing.
quote:Can we vote him off the island - please?
Originally posted by saysay:
If I had to guess, I'd say he's treating it like a reality TV show. Part reality, part reality manipulated by the producers. It's a game he wants to win for the sake of winning and he hasn't given much thought to what would happen if he actually did.
quote:Whether there's anything in that or not, please all of you who do, heed this from someone who does not have a vote in this particular election.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A sensible American's take on the Donald.
quote:I don't understand why you chose this particular link. Would you help me understand, please?
Originally posted by saysay:
Voting him off the island is the only way he'll get my vote.
quote:Please do. You may keep him there.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What the hell, let Trump come over, and give him the welcome he deserves.
quote:To a large extent, what is missing from all this stuff is some sort of cogent analysis as to why such a amateurish loon as Trump has ever made it to the top of the dung-heap. Where is the viable alternative narrative that will convince his current supporters that they are on a wild goose chase? What I see here is zero empathy for his supporters. That's empathy - not sympathy, empathy being the ability to put yourself in their shoes, however distasteful you may consider that project. And from it's absence, I'll bet most of you do.
Originally posted by passer:
This is a rather good analysis of the Trump phenomenon.
quote:In what sense does the John Scalzi column above not do that (other than provide some form of exculpatory reasoning that will allow blame to be avoided by both the participants, and the conservative strategists who have used triangulation to drive politics rightwards).
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:To a large extent, what is missing from all this stuff is some sort of cogent analysis as to why such a amateurish loon as Trump has ever made it to the top of the dung-heap.
Originally posted by passer:
This is a rather good analysis of the Trump phenomenon.
quote:It sounds like you are laying the blame for the right ratcheting up dog whistle politics at the feet of the left.
Where is the viable alternative narrative that will convince his current supporters that they are on a wild goose chase?
quote:I was in fact responding to the Berman article cited in passer's post. But I would apply the same critique to both articles, namely that they are devoid of any coherent analysis of the alienation of the working class support they (Trump, FN, etc.) attract. I'm not panning either article - they are both worth reading.
In what sense does the John Scalzi column above not do that (other than provide some form of exculpatory reasoning that will allow blame to be avoided by both the participants, and the conservative strategists who have used triangulation to drive politics rightwards).
quote:Not even remotely. The right wing can take the blame for all their sleazy corruption and the rest of it. I am pointing out that if the left wing (or in the case of America, whoever these days looks after their interest, which is probably no-one) cannot provide a more compelling narrative for the working class than the farcical lies of Donald Trump, then does it not occur to you that there may be a colossal problem in that department?
It sounds like you are laying the blame for the right ratcheting up dog whistle politics at the feet of the left.
quote:Agreed. Winning-- being the best, coming out on top-- is everything. In the end, the job itself will be too much work for too little pay for someone like the Donald.
Originally posted by saysay:
If I had to guess, I'd say he's treating it like a reality TV show. Part reality, part reality manipulated by the producers. It's a game he wants to win for the sake of winning and he hasn't given much thought to what would happen if he actually did.
quote:I do find this article to be an accurate indication of why Trump is so popular, but not for the reasons the article states.
Originally posted by saysay:
Here's a different take on why he's so popular.
quote:You made me sign something online. That is some kind of precedent.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That petition has now passed 100,000 signatures.
quote:More than that, if he does become the president, he can only fail. Sure, he won't build that wall and he won't deport all Muslims etc. That's breaking a promise to his supporters but he can talk himself out of that. Talking himself out of things is his specialty, so he isn't worried about that.
cliffdweller: Winning-- being the best, coming out on top-- is everything. In the end, the job itself will be too much work for too little pay for someone like the Donald.
quote:Makes you one of the, currently, 270,000 - though its going up about 12 signatures a second at the moment.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You made me sign something online. That is some kind of precedent.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That petition has now passed 100,000 signatures.
quote:True, and I think he stumbled through his business life mostly in this way. But when you're president of the USA, there are limits to what you can outsource.
Brenda Clough: You can hire people to do all that sort of thing for you, the same way you hire gardeners and people to iron your laundry.
quote:Sure, and I'd agree with arguments that the parties of the left have lost their way (largely by adopting a neo-liberal agenda and accompanying narrative). However, ISTM that to dwell on that in isolation ignores a fairly important problem of agency.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The right wing can take the blame for all their sleazy corruption and the rest of it. I am pointing out that if the left wing (or in the case of America, whoever these days looks after their interest, which is probably no-one) cannot provide a more compelling narrative for the working class than the farcical lies of Donald Trump, then does it not occur to you that there may be a colossal problem in that department?
quote:No argument from me here either.
chris stiles: Sure, and I'd agree with arguments that the parties of the left have lost their way (largely by adopting a neo-liberal agenda and accompanying narrative).
quote:I think it will happen regardless. Even if the relevant responsible* powers formulated a real plan to eliminate the fuel for radicalisation, it would not work overnight.**
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if Trump's ideas, if put into practice, would create much greater radicalization of young Muslims, not just in the US, but in other countries. I suppose you could also argue that even if not put into practice, this may happen.
quote:I was interested in this article on Corbyn, reflecting on "Britain’s permanent political class". With the Bush and Clinton clans to the fore, perhaps the finances involved are pushing the US in that direction also.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A massive problem in America, and the U.K., is money. The money it takes to be in politics at a serious level means that the working-class is ever more irrelevant as those who claim to be on the left have much more in common with their Tory/republican opponents than they do their supposed constituents.
Trump succeeds through fear and through frustration.
quote:ISTM, they've already arrived. And this is part of Trump's appeal. He is viewed as someone outside the system.
Originally posted by passer:
I was interested in this article on Corbyn, reflecting on "Britain’s permanent political class". With the Bush and Clinton clans to the fore, perhaps the finances involved are pushing the US in that direction also.
quote:Both. But not just the ethically and morally challenged. This is a trap that many of us fall into. Some otherwise decent people support hate. It has always been thus. Was our racist Gran a horrible person? Not any more likely than not. Doesn't mean her racism was any better for that, but to demonise too greatly does not help.
Originally posted by passer:
Or perhaps Trump is such a scumbag that he truly appeals to the lowest echelons of the educationally and ethically and morally challenged.
quote:For me the key points are:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--
I don't understand why you chose this particular link. Would you help me understand, please?
AIUI, Pat Buchanan is saying that the liberal media are driving everyday GOP folks towards Trump, by leveling the same criticisms at both for being politically incorrect.
quote:And
His popularity is traceable to the fact that he rejects the moral authority of the media, breaks their commandments and mocks their condemnations. His contempt for the norms of political correctness is daily on display.
And that large slice of America that detests a media whose public approval now rivals that of Congress relishes this defiance. The last thing these folks want Trump to do is to apologize to the press.
quote:I don't think he's blaming the liberal media for driving everyday GOP folks towards Trump so much as trying to explain his popularity to a media that doesn't seem to get it (and may not be able to truly understand it).
Yet, now that the fourth estate is as discredited as the clergy in 1789, the larger problem is that there is no arbiter of truth, morality and decency left whom we all respect. Like fourth-century Romans, we barely agree on what those terms mean anymore.
quote:Yes, Trump has said some thoroughly racist stuff. The media have made some thoroughly moronic commentary ('Muslim' is not a race).
Except...Trump has said a bunch of thoroughly racist stuff. And, from various of your past posts, racism is something you're very much against.
quote:Fun fact: no-one needs the media more for his candidacy than Donald Trump.
Quoted by saysay: His popularity is traceable to the fact that he rejects the moral authority of the media, breaks their commandments and mocks their condemnations.
quote:Firstly, as a reality TV star Donald Trump is "the media".
Originally posted by saysay:
I've just read way to many media pieces about what Trump supporters really think and really feel and what is actually motivating them by people who appear to have never actually spoken to a Trump supporter.
But I think he makes some valid points about at least one of the factors driving Trump's popularity. People like the fact that he's holding his middle finger up to the media. A lot of people really hate the media but are dependent on it for information. Trump is doing what people wish they could do.
quote:I'm not ignoring other matters - simply trying to draw attention to an understanding of how we got such a void in the political systems of several western countries. If people are persuaded by these hucksters, they need to take responsibility for that right enough. But at the earlier (ongoing?) stage, responsibility needs to be shouldered by others. The dim sense that we may be part of that problem in some way might help.
Sure, and I'd agree with arguments that the parties of the left have lost their way (largely by adopting a neo-liberal agenda and accompanying narrative). However, ISTM that to dwell on that in isolation ignores a fairly important problem of agency.
Supporters of Trump (and others) are demonstrating that they believe some form of weaponised viciousness towards some 'other' is the answer to their problems. I'm not sure that they wouldn't find social democracy (coupled by whatever level of economic critique) to be a fairly bland answer
quote:And yet he doesn't. He criticizes Progressivism. And its Humpty Dumpty habit of making words mean whatever it wants them to mean and expecting the masses to accept it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But when the author slams liberals for things like recognizing/ addressing transgender issues he shows his true colors.
quote:Mr. Miller's article was lengthy, but its entire purpose can be summed up from two lines near the end.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:And yet he doesn't. He criticizes Progressivism. And its Humpty Dumpty habit of making words mean whatever it wants them to mean and expecting the masses to accept it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But when the author slams liberals for things like recognizing/ addressing transgender issues he shows his true colors.
quote:There you go. Nearly two thousand meandering words distilled in two relatively short sentences.
Of the choices on tap, the establishment is the least of all evils and the only conceivable route to a non-Trump, non-progressive presidency next year.
<snip>
The author advises Marco Rubio's campaign for president.
quote:Crœsos post was short, but its entire purpose can be gleaned from the rest of his posting habits: he is trying to make people run screaming away from anyone who calls themselves a liberal or progressive.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mr. Miller's article was lengthy, but its entire purpose can be summed up from two lines near the end.
quote:The wording of the petition is as follows.
What Are Typical Hate Speech Targets?
Hate speech is typically directed towards another person or group on the grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, colour, ethnic origin and religion. Hate speech can be shown in many forms, typically verbal abuse, written speeches, harassment or gestures. The intention of hate speech is to harass and distress the intended target. In many cases the use of hate speech can incite violence from one group towards another.
What UK Laws Offer Protection Against Hate Speech?
There is no actual law against hate speech itself in the UK. Legal protection is provided under various statutes. The Public Order Act 1986 forbids racial hatred against individuals of groups including colour, race, ethnic origin and nationality. This can include threatening behaviour and written material that is designed to cause harassment and distress. In 2006; The Public Order Act was been amended to include religious hatred. In 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act amended the Public Order Act to forbid the incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
quote:I'm not canvassing support here (that would be against Ship guidelines) but I thought the details might be of interest to US Shipmates.
The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.
If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.
quote:I don't think so, because introduction of the issue of transgenderism is totemistic - the impact of transgenderism on the lives of most people is going to be miniscule at worst - rather transgenderism functions as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the entire liberal 'project' and by extension signals cover for all the less socially acceptable prejudices of his audience.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:And yet he doesn't. He criticizes Progressivism. And its Humpty Dumpty habit of making words mean whatever it wants them to mean and expecting the masses to accept it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But when the author slams liberals for things like recognizing/ addressing transgender issues he shows his true colors.
quote:The other way of looking at it was that there is an entire group of people in society whose identity was largely built on notions of superiority over various out groups and that earlier iterations of liberalism basically bought them off by providing them with specific niche livelihoods which they could valorize.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Viciousness, fear etc. is a human weakness, as lilBuddha points out. Not an attractive one under the circumstances, but maybe it served some function in other more evolutionary situations. I'd need to think about that. Or maybe it's just a perversion of a protective impulse.
quote:Yep. Even if it means ignoring the racism and excessive greed that is now running rampant in the GOP and indeed, in his own heart (because yes, he DID get in some neatly concealed homophobic and other digs under the guise of addressing liberal excess).
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Crœsos post was short, but its entire purpose can be gleaned from the rest of his posting habits: he is trying to make people run screaming away from anyone who calls themselves a liberal or progressive.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mr. Miller's article was lengthy, but its entire purpose can be summed up from two lines near the end.
quote:I must be missing something, because it read the exact opposite to me.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Crœsos post was short, but its entire purpose can be gleaned from the rest of his posting habits: he is trying to make people run screaming away from anyone who calls themselves a liberal or progressive.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mr. Miller's article was lengthy, but its entire purpose can be summed up from two lines near the end.
quote:I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who call themselves liberals or progressives who also happen to be psychic and know what people they've never met really think and feel and have in their heart. But I think I pointed that out in a previous post to Golden Key.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yep. Even if it means ignoring the racism and excessive greed that is now running rampant in the GOP and indeed, in his own heart (because yes, he DID get in some neatly concealed homophobic and other digs under the guise of addressing liberal excess).
I'm certainly willing to admit there are radical liberals with problematic agendas. I'm certainly willing to admit we have our own sacred cows that don't bear up well to close inspection. But the degree of projection the author is engaging in here is worth of it's own Vegas act, complete with scantily clad showgirls in 8 foot headpieces (all the better to distract you my dear).
I'm thinking through it, and will try to reply within a few days.
quote:How odd that they would follow a multi billionaire who could never begin to know how they live
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is something disturbing in this picture of the relatively disadvantaged and alienated sections of our society being attracted to the rage and hate and fear filled rhetoric of Donald Trump.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Which is what demagogues always do. Over here Marine Lepen plays on exactly the same tactic – taking complex social problems and offering apparently simple solutions. “All we need to do is… We should just…”
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is something disturbing in this picture of the relatively disadvantaged and alienated sections of our society being attracted to the rage and hate and fear filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I've listened to a lot of supporters' comments. He is a spokesperson for their frustrations, using plain language to give simple sounding solutions.
quote:And it seems to have worked.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Which is what demagogues always do. Over here Marine Lepen plays on exactly the same tactic – taking complex social problems and offering apparently simple solutions. “All we need to do is… We should just…”
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is something disturbing in this picture of the relatively disadvantaged and alienated sections of our society being attracted to the rage and hate and fear filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I've listened to a lot of supporters' comments. He is a spokesperson for their frustrations, using plain language to give simple sounding solutions.
quote:As someone who actually remembers the last eight years, this seems remarkably revisionist. I seem to recall how the secret Commie-Muslim-Kenyan usurper was going to kill everyone's grandma with death panels once he was done "palling around with terrorists". Insisting that all Mexican immigrants (regardless of legality) are rapists and drug dealers or that all Muslims are secretly terrorist-traitors waiting for the right moment to strike is just the next logical step in the progression.
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, I know, the Narrative insists that the anger is because white men are losing the arbitrary power they once had on account of being white men, blah, blah, blah. But there wasn't this kind of anger four and eight years ago.
quote:He plays into the "self-made" myth and presents an image of success*. Also, his money gives him the appearance of independence. And this is not small. The average voter might not truly understand political process, but it is obvious that the system is not properly functioning for their the benefit. Simply not being perceived as part of the system has strong appeal, especially in America. That is how the Tea-baggers** came to be elected.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How odd that they would follow a multi billionaire who could never begin to know how they live
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is something disturbing in this picture of the relatively disadvantaged and alienated sections of our society being attracted to the rage and hate and fear filled rhetoric of Donald Trump.
quote:OMG! There is still someone on the Left who listens to what people say and takes it at face value. I don't deny that there are people like this out there, and that they are the most likely to attend a Trump rally.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't have to be a psychic to see and hear a guy at a Trump rally speaking into a microphone his opinion that Muslims should be kept out of the US, in order to know what this guy is thinking. HE JUST TOLD YOU. You have to be asleep not to know what people are saying out loud, in public, to anyone who will listen.
quote:Oh, I certainly remember the Tea Partiers and the birthers and the Obama is secretly a Muslim people too. And I remember that it seemed to me that both they and the media were trying to make them look like they were a much larger group than they were, and that they somehow represented the 'real' America in a way that citified Democrats did not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As someone who actually remembers the last eight years, this seems remarkably revisionist. I seem to recall how the secret Commie-Muslim-Kenyan usurper was going to kill everyone's grandma with death panels once he was done "palling around with terrorists". Insisting that all Mexican immigrants (regardless of legality) are rapists and drug dealers or that all Muslims are secretly terrorist-traitors waiting for the right moment to strike is just the next logical step in the progression.
quote:Why do you think they are that much bigger now than they used to be? Your original contention was that they were absent until now - as Creosus points out, they were not. Trump is just the logical progression of what the Tea Party has done at the state level a number of times, except this time with a candidate who isn't backed by one of the traditional conservative power brokers.
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, I certainly remember the Tea Partiers and the birthers and the Obama is secretly a Muslim people too. And I remember that it seemed to me that both they and the media were trying to make them look like they were a much larger group than they were, and that they somehow represented the 'real' America in a way that citified Democrats did not.
quote:Of course it isn't, but it is used as a shorthand for race (tell me again how the ban will be implemented).
Originally posted by saysay:
Yes, Trump has said some thoroughly racist stuff. The media have made some thoroughly moronic commentary ('Muslim' is not a race).
quote:No, I never said that "they" were absent.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Your original contention was that they were absent until now - as Creosus points out, they were not.
quote:It's perfectly legitimate to interpret that to mean there were no people who were extremely angry at the Democrats, or political figures, or whatnot. However, I meant that there wasn't this kind of widespread anger among people who aren't usually particularly political.
But there wasn't this kind of anger four and eight years ago.
quote:I'm not sure how to parse this sentence. Who are "they" and how are they "bigger?" The Tea Party? But most Trump supporters aren't Tea Partiers. Or are you asking why I think the anger is more widespread (the causality of it)? Or why I think the extreme anger is more widespread?
Why do you think they are that much bigger now than they used to be?
quote:What circles do you move in that religion is commonly used as a shorthand for race? (I thought that was a Tea Party thing: Obama's black and lived in Kenya, therefore he's Muslim). And are you referring here to Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Of course it isn't, but it is used as a shorthand for race (tell me again how the ban will be implemented).
Originally posted by saysay:
Yes, Trump has said some thoroughly racist stuff. The media have made some thoroughly moronic commentary ('Muslim' is not a race).
quote:But it's not about whether or not the policy would prevent terrorist attacks any more than any of the Democratic gun control policies that have been proposed in the past few weeks would have kept guns out of the hands of mass shooters (most of the time they wouldn't have).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If you are entering the country to commit a terrorist act, and you know you will be stopped from entering if you say you are muslim, what do you think you will say when asked if you are a muslim - yes or no ?
quote:While Trump should never have been allowed to do this, the people who originally welcomed him and encouraged him with the golf course on such a sensitive site were Scottish Labour under First Minister Jack McConnell (then in coalition with the Lib Dems), who also gave Trump the 'Global Scot' business ambassador title he's just been stripped of.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I hope all of those expressing righteous indignation about DJT's latest outburst of insanity and unpleasantness have noted just how well-regarded and received he was by certain UK politicians.
Yes, I'm thinking of one A Salmond who almost single-handedly pushed through planning permission for the Donald's golfing development in Aberdeenshire, despite objections from the RSPB, Natural Heritage Scotland, the site being an SSSI andon one of Europe's largest and most important unspoiled (then) sand dune systems.
Its also interesting to note that when he speaks in the US he wants to keep jobs "for locals" when the reverse is true in Aberdeenshire, with just 60 jobs materialising from the 500+ that were promised when he was trying to get planning permission; most of the staff at DT's golf course have been brought in from elsewhere - immigrants, in fact!
quote:It was perfectly legitimate to interpret it that way primarily because you were then using it as an argument to disprove a particular narrative.
Originally posted by saysay:
It's perfectly legitimate to interpret that to mean there were no people who were extremely angry at the Democrats, or political figures, or whatnot. However, I meant that there wasn't this kind of widespread anger among people who aren't usually particularly political.
quote:You just proved my point. To some of Trumo's audience, 'Muslim' functions as a racial designation and so pointing out that 'Muslim isn't a race' is somewhat of a non-sequitur. It matters little what you are I think 'Muslim' means - what matters is what Trump's audience believe it means.
quote:What circles do you move in that religion is commonly used as a shorthand for race? (I thought that was a Tea Party thing: Obama's black and lived in Kenya, therefore he's Muslim).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Of course it isn't, but it is used as a shorthand for race (tell me again how the ban will be implemented).
Originally posted by saysay:
Yes, Trump has said some thoroughly racist stuff. The media have made some thoroughly moronic commentary ('Muslim' is not a race).
quote:I have no idea, I think you mistake me for a US Democrat.
Now, tell me again how this proposed gun ban is going to work?
quote:Clearly, you are too mired in the details to appreciate the wonderful simplicity of the solution.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If you are entering the country to commit a terrorist act, and you know you will be stopped from entering if you say you are muslim, what do you think you will say when asked if you are a muslim - yes or no ?
quote:I hope you pay your words on the Humpty Dumpty pay scale.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:No, I never said that "they" were absent.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Your original contention was that they were absent until now - as Creosus points out, they were not.
What I said was:
quote:It's perfectly legitimate to interpret that to mean there were no people who were extremely angry at the Democrats, or political figures, or whatnot. However, I meant that there wasn't this kind of widespread anger among people who aren't usually particularly political.
But there wasn't this kind of anger four and eight years ago.
quote:I didn't use it as an argument to disprove a particular narrative, I used it as an argument to question the narrative, even though I know that heresy is likely to get me accused of being a witch and burned at the stake.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:It was perfectly legitimate to interpret it that way primarily because you were then using it as an argument to disprove a particular narrative.
Originally posted by saysay:
It's perfectly legitimate to interpret that to mean there were no people who were extremely angry at the Democrats, or political figures, or whatnot. However, I meant that there wasn't this kind of widespread anger among people who aren't usually particularly political.
quote:And yet I wouldn't argue against the idea that economic deprivation causes anger, particularly when there is such a large disparity between the have's and have-nots.
If you want to bring up levels of anger, then over the last 4-8 years we have had a largely growth-less recovery where the lives of the working class and lower middle-classes have become more precarious (exactly the groups implicated in that narrative).
quote:There's a lot to question in that narrative.
The other way of looking at it was that there is an entire group of people in society whose identity was largely built on notions of superiority over various out groups and that earlier iterations of liberalism basically bought them off by providing them with specific niche livelihoods which they could valorize.
Changes in the economy mean that they can longer maintain the positions of relative advantage that they once enjoyed, and as they have know that they are better than all these uppity blacks/gays/women it is clearly someone else's fault.
quote:But we're not talking about what Trump said speaking to his audience, we're talking about the media who are supposed to be educated people capable of fact checking. Or do you agree (as most of the media seem to) that facts don't matter as long as you're promoting the narrative and truthiness?
quote:You just proved my point. To some of Trumo's audience, 'Muslim' functions as a racial designation and so pointing out that 'Muslim isn't a race' is somewhat of a non-sequitur. It matters little what you are I think 'Muslim' means - what matters is what Trump's audience believe it means.
quote:What circles do you move in that religion is commonly used as a shorthand for race? (I thought that was a Tea Party thing: Obama's black and lived in Kenya, therefore he's Muslim).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Of course it isn't, but it is used as a shorthand for race (tell me again how the ban will be implemented).
Originally posted by saysay:
Yes, Trump has said some thoroughly racist stuff. The media have made some thoroughly moronic commentary ('Muslim' is not a race).
quote:Sad thing for his supporters is that Trump is part of the reason for the less than stellar economy. And there is no reason to suppose he will do anything that helps either of those classes. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:It was perfectly legitimate to interpret it that way primarily because you were then using it as an argument to disprove a particular narrative.
Originally posted by saysay:
It's perfectly legitimate to interpret that to mean there were no people who were extremely angry at the Democrats, or political figures, or whatnot. However, I meant that there wasn't this kind of widespread anger among people who aren't usually particularly political.
If you want to bring up levels of anger, then over the last 4-8 years we have had a largely growth-less recovery where the lives of the working class and lower middle-classes have become more precarious (exactly the groups implicated in that narrative).
quote:More reality in Colbert's truthiness than in anything Trump has vomited from underneath whatever dead animal is perched upon his head.
Originally posted by saysay:
truthiness?
quote:Nope. I'm sometimes a descriptivist and sometimes a presciptivist but I try to be honest about which I'm being in any given situation and why.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hope you pay your words on the Humpty Dumpty pay scale.
quote:The problem is when you're a neologist and nobody knows you've invented a new way of using words until after the fact.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Nope. I'm sometimes a descriptivist and sometimes a presciptivist but I try to be honest about which I'm being in any given situation and why.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hope you pay your words on the Humpty Dumpty pay scale.
quote:So question it directly - also note that the economic argument can run side by side with it.
Originally posted by saysay:
There's a lot to question in that narrative.
quote:In that case I have no idea what you were talking about in that original paragraph. I had assumed given the context that you were complaining that the media had made the claim of 'racist' around Trump's call to ban Muslims from entry to the US.
But we're not talking about what Trump said speaking to his audience, we're talking about the media who are supposed to be educated people capable of fact checking.
quote:Can you really say that? Is that any more than rhetoric?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sad thing for his supporters is that Trump is part of the reason for the less than stellar economy. ....
quote:My understanding is that US media don't have to report actual facts about politicans and the like. This has lead to the rise of channels like Fox News that peddle news with a particular agenda - BE AFRAID AMERICA!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So question it directly - also note that the economic argument can run side by side with it.
Originally posted by saysay:
There's a lot to question in that narrative.
quote:In that case I have no idea what you were talking about in that original paragraph. I had assumed given the context that you were complaining that the media had made the claim of 'racist' around Trump's call to ban Muslims from entry to the US.
But we're not talking about what Trump said speaking to his audience, we're talking about the media who are supposed to be educated people capable of fact checking.
quote:Which could work out well - handing the presidency to the Democrats on a plate.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The fact that Trump with his nylon hair could get the GOP nomination is within the bounds of possiblity.
quote:Interestingly, Republican apparatchik Frank Luntz recently did that. The most interesting thing for me was the degree to which the Trump supporters were impervious to contrary information.
Originally posted by saysay:
Have you talked to any of the non-rally attending Trump supporters who are showing up in his numbers but don't necessarily fit into the media narrative?
quote:And this, I think, is a good indicator of the political divide in the US. Those who get their news from a single source without cross-checking won't know to what extent the news they get may be slanted, prejudiced, or simply made-up, but they construct their view of the world from it regardless of the accuracy. While Faux News may have been designed for this purpose and is a clear example of it, they aren't the only ones guilty of biased / selective / overly inventive "reporting".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The most interesting thing for me was the degree to which the Trump supporters were impervious to contrary information.
quote:In that they are not unlike the man they follow.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Interestingly, Republican apparatchik Frank Luntz recently did that. The most interesting thing for me was the degree to which the Trump supporters were impervious to contrary information.
Originally posted by saysay:
Have you talked to any of the non-rally attending Trump supporters who are showing up in his numbers but don't necessarily fit into the media narrative?
quote:He's found an airport hangar that accommodate him. (This is not the main Phoenix airport, just a smaller one pretty far out of town.)
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Trump has decided to grace Phoenix with his presence next Wednesday -- if he can find a venue to hold 5000+ people with five days advance notice. (I think I'll stay home with my doors locked.)
quote:It'll be interesting to see how many would-be attendees go to the main airport.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:He's found an airport hangar that accommodate him. (This is not the main Phoenix airport, just a smaller one pretty far out of town.)
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Trump has decided to grace Phoenix with his presence next Wednesday -- if he can find a venue to hold 5000+ people with five days advance notice. (I think I'll stay home with my doors locked.)
quote:And Trump's long-time friend, Russell Simmons, has published an open letter, telling him to "Stop the bullshit." (HuffPost)
One of the world's wealthiest businessmen, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, had sharp words for Trump on Friday, telling him via Twitter to withdraw from the presidential race, "as you will never win."
"You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America," he wrote. The billionaire prince is chairman of investment firm Kingdom Holding Company.
The company behind the Trump Towers in Istanbul, meanwhile, said it is "assessing" its partnership with the Republican presidential front-runner.
quote:Maybe he'll provide shuttle buses?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It'll be interesting to see how many would-be attendees go to the main airport.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:He's found an airport hangar that accommodate him. (This is not the main Phoenix airport, just a smaller one pretty far out of town.)
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Trump has decided to grace Phoenix with his presence next Wednesday -- if he can find a venue to hold 5000+ people with five days advance notice. (I think I'll stay home with my doors locked.)
quote:That is interesting and (as Barnabas62 said) scary. It reminds me of the quote attributed to Karl Rove about reality: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The most interesting thing for me was the degree to which the Trump supporters were impervious to contrary information.
quote:We're all the same due to the Backfire Effect
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The most interesting thing for me was the degree to which the Trump supporters were impervious to contrary information.
quote:Comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever argued about shit on the internet, of course.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate
quote:We don't-- I'd never heard that usage until this thread. But ask me again in 11 months-- I'm thinking it might catch on.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do American children use a trump to mean a fart?
quote:This could be the "santorum" for 2016.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:We don't-- I'd never heard that usage until this thread. But ask me again in 11 months-- I'm thinking it might catch on.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do American children use a trump to mean a fart?
quote:What is interesting about that is that it gives us two possible Trumps.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And Trump's long-time friend, Russell Simmons, has published an open letter, telling him to "Stop the bullshit." (HuffPost)
quote:Saudi Arabia is a disgrace to all Islam and the world.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, the Donald seems to be losing friends and Muslim business.
Like "Trump's name, image removed at Dubai development amid uproar" (Yahoo).
quote:
One of the world's wealthiest businessmen, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, had sharp words for Trump on Friday, telling him via Twitter to withdraw from the presidential race, "as you will never win."
"You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America," he wrote. The billionaire prince is chairman of investment firm Kingdom Holding Company.
quote:I think your 3 is very close to my 1 and your 4 is pretty much the same as my 2, but with a bit of the messy part of your 3 thrown in for good measures.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
3. A powerful man whose mind/brain is a mess.
4. A powerful man who, for whatever reasons, functions very differently in private than he does when speaking in public.
quote:I think what people find most shocking is that he says what he thinks, with maybe the smallest amount of moderation. The reverse is probably true for everyone else who might have realistic designs on attaining public office.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't have to be a psychic to see and hear a guy at a Trump rally speaking into a microphone his opinion that Muslims should be kept out of the US, in order to know what this guy is thinking. HE JUST TOLD YOU. You have to be asleep not to know what people are saying out loud, in public, to anyone who will listen.
quote:Did someone call me?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
However you reckon it, he is fantabulously unsuited to helm the state. I have cats who would make better Presidents.
quote:At this point I think we're pretty much at the point where if this is the best they can come up with, we might as well throw out elections all together and have a lottery. Pulling a name at random from the phone book could hardly have worse outcomes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
However you reckon it, he is fantabulously unsuited to helm the state. I have cats who would make better Presidents.
quote:Interestingly the Trump campaign maintains it will not just win but completely dominate the African-American vote. As with all things Trump, it's impossible to tell from the outside whether this is bluster or self-deception.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, to an outsider it seems suicidal, to adopt what is in effect a white racist programme. I guess it will appeal to some people, but surely not enough to win a national election? Most non-whites are going to be running scared from Trump.
quote:I think you underestimate the electoral importance of Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you look at the electoral map of that year you'll note that the only states Goldwater carried were Arizona (his home state), Georgia, and the four states carried by Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" campaign. That seems a pretty clear indication that the Goldwater campaign had at least something to do with America's racial politics.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm reminded of Goldwater, although I suppose this was a more anti-communist and pro-nuclear campaign.
quote:The undercard/kiddie table debate consists of:
Paul, who was in danger of being removed from the main stage, was saved at the 11th hour by showing viability in a Fox News poll released Sunday morning.
quote:That's a little extreme, especially for an arrogant fool on his way out the door!
Originally posted by Firenze:
Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when his country needs him?
quote:That would, as I understand it, be consistent with their position of commander-in-chief.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All of them are chicken hawks, cowardly to the core but absolutely anxious, nay delighted, to send other people into combat.
quote:They fell all over themselves to piously declare that they had compassion for refugees but that until the State Dept. can "100% guarantee" that anyone attempting to enter the US was not a bad guy we can't let them in. Cuz they have only the safety of the American people in mind, of course.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I gather none of the other Republican candidates were prepared to challenge Trump's views on Muslims in the latest 'debate'. What would be a good name for that kind of behaviour? 'Appeasement' perhaps?
quote:
(Hugh Hewitt: “Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands?”)
“...You should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them we're going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor...They don't like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me...
“...Later on… they really realize what's going on. And by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks.”
(Hewitt: “So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian?”)
“You got it. You got it.”
quote:And you trust Hillary? A demonstrated liar with a sexual predator for a husband?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Hopefully the exhibition of all the candidates at these debates will drive everyone to vote Democratic. There was certainly no one on the stage last night whom I would trust with a pocket knife, never mind the presidency.
quote:How would either of those things bar her from office?
Originally posted by romanlion:
And you trust Hillary? A demonstrated liar with a sexual predator for a husband?
quote:Well that covers just about everyone who's ever held the office - with the possible exceptions of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Jimmy Carter.
Originally posted by romanlion:
A demonstrated liar
quote:Indeed. And if we want to talk about sexual predators, Thomas Jefferson sleeping with an enslaved woman has to take top prize over anything Clinton pulled.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:Well that covers just about everyone who's ever held the office - with the possible exceptions of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Jimmy Carter.
Originally posted by romanlion:
A demonstrated liar
quote:Not in terms of total net worth, it isn't. Anyone who owns their own house is worth more.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(Also $100,000 is rich !)
quote:If you think she's a liar, I get that. That's a personal quality of hers. But why does being cheated on by a husband who predates other women disqualify her in your eyes? That's his failing, not hers.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And you trust Hillary? A demonstrated liar with a sexual predator for a husband? ....
quote:I don't think she is a liar.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:If you think she's a liar, I get that. That's a personal quality of hers.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And you trust Hillary? A demonstrated liar with a sexual predator for a husband? ....
quote:She was never cheated on, she was complicit.
But why does being cheated on by a husband who predates other women disqualify her in your eyes? That's his failing, not hers.
Can you persuade that is not both an unsound reason and unfair to her?
quote:You show me a politician and I'll show you someone who can be demonstrated to be a liar, even though they are as honest as the day is long.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:If you think she's a liar, I get that. That's a personal quality of hers. But why does being cheated on by a husband who predates other women disqualify her in your eyes? That's his failing, not hers.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And you trust Hillary? A demonstrated liar with a sexual predator for a husband? ....
Can you persuade that is not both an unsound reason and unfair to her?
quote:Anyone who owns their own house without a mortgage on it *is* rich.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not in terms of total net worth, it isn't. Anyone who owns their own house is worth more.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(Also $100,000 is rich !)
quote:I doubt that he would even then.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...romanlion isn't going to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton unless she is on a ticket with Jesus Christ Himself.
quote:Am I not aware of Bill Cosby having been convicted of any such offense?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re the linked Clinton article - that appears to be an allegation of a criminal offence, I am not aware of either of them having a conviction for any such offense ?
quote:Sure. If Bernie were more competitive I would probably vote for him in the South Carolina primary. (Only as an against)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Out of curiosity, is there any candidate you like?
quote:I don't know anything at all about Cosby's wife. But if she were qualified & had good policy positions, sure, I would.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Am I not aware of Bill Cosby having been convicted of any such offense?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re the linked Clinton article - that appears to be an allegation of a criminal offence, I am not aware of either of them having a conviction for any such offense ?
Would you support his wife for POTUS were she running as a dim?
quote:That's what Clinton and Cosby are in your opinion?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I was married to a serial adulterer for more than 11 years, so I'm not one to buy into this blame-the-wife mentality.
quote:Clinton yes. Cosby appears to be worse. As was my ex-husband, but I was trying not to go into all the ugly details. But the bottom line is that I'm not someone who's apt to agree that it's the wife's fault when the husband commits a crime.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:That's what Clinton and Cosby are in your opinion?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I was married to a serial adulterer for more than 11 years, so I'm not one to buy into this blame-the-wife mentality.
Adulterers?
quote:Your ex-husband...Clinton and Cosby are husbands.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Clinton yes. Cosby appears to be worse. As was my ex-husband, but I was trying not to go into all the ugly details. But the bottom line is that I'm not someone who's apt to agree that it's the wife's fault when the husband commits a crime.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:That's what Clinton and Cosby are in your opinion?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I was married to a serial adulterer for more than 11 years, so I'm not one to buy into this blame-the-wife mentality.
Adulterers?
quote:You would be wrong.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Your ex-husband...Clinton and Cosby are husbands.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Clinton yes. Cosby appears to be worse. As was my ex-husband, but I was trying not to go into all the ugly details. But the bottom line is that I'm not someone who's apt to agree that it's the wife's fault when the husband commits a crime.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:That's what Clinton and Cosby are in your opinion?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I was married to a serial adulterer for more than 11 years, so I'm not one to buy into this blame-the-wife mentality.
Adulterers?
If your ex-husband had been wealthy and powerful would the benefits that afforded you have been enough to soothe the harm and humiliation he put you through? Would you have defended him, even to the extent of actively working to discredit and marginalize his victims? Would you have tolerated behavior that you knew was happening, and was in all likelihood criminal for no other reason than your own selfishness?
I only know you from these boards, but I am confident the answer is no.
I don't blame the wives for their husband's lechery, I blame them for enabling and encouraging it long past any reasonable point of "plausible deniability."
That isn't the kind of character and judgement I would support in a candidate for POTUS.
quote:It appears that candidates raise most of their own money. Some money does come from the parties, though I haven't been able to find a clear source indicating their share - possibly this means it's not sufficiently large to merit separate mention. In any case, the parties would have to rely on donors too...
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But not their political party itself ?
(Also $100,000 is rich !)
quote:Such as?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Sure. If Bernie were more competitive I would probably vote for him in the South Carolina primary. (Only as an against)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Out of curiosity, is there any candidate you like?
As it stands I will vote for my GOP favorite that day, knowing that he/she will probably get >2% of the vote.
On election day 2016 I wouldn't dream of voting for a republican or a dimocrat. I value my vote too much to waste it on any of those assholes when there will be multiple better options available.
quote:And the better options? Voting for space aliens? Watching the returns while munching and yelling? Or will the revolution/apocalypse have happened by then?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Sure. If Bernie were more competitive I would probably vote for him in the South Carolina primary. (Only as an against)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Out of curiosity, is there any candidate you like?
As it stands I will vote for my GOP favorite that day, knowing that he/she will probably get >2% of the vote.
On election day 2016 I wouldn't dream of voting for a republican or a dimocrat. I value my vote too much to waste it on any of those assholes when there will be multiple better options available.
quote:In SC in 2012 there was a Libertarian candidate, a Green, and a Constitution party candidate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:And the better options? Voting for space aliens? Watching the returns while munching and yelling? Or will the revolution/apocalypse have happened by then?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Sure. If Bernie were more competitive I would probably vote for him in the South Carolina primary. (Only as an against)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Out of curiosity, is there any candidate you like?
As it stands I will vote for my GOP favorite that day, knowing that he/she will probably get >2% of the vote.
On election day 2016 I wouldn't dream of voting for a republican or a dimocrat. I value my vote too much to waste it on any of those assholes when there will be multiple better options available.
(Joking, but I'm curious.)
quote:I suspect the allegation that Doublethink. was referring to occurs towards the end of the article - where the subject opinions that the Clintons were involved in the death of her husband.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Am I not aware of Bill Cosby having been convicted of any such offense?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re the linked Clinton article - that appears to be an allegation of a criminal offence, I am not aware of either of them having a conviction for any such offense ?
quote:Marvellous, that means I'll be rich in exactly 23* years
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone who owns their own house without a mortgage on it *is* rich.
quote:That was totally nasty and uncalled for. Every dog lover will hate you for saying that.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm not sure what Don's medical condition was, but I'm guessing "Golden Retriever Hair Syndrome".
quote:If only he had one GRs hair's worth of friendliness for neighbours then he'd be fine.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm not sure what Don's medical condition was, but I'm guessing "Golden Retriever Hair Syndrome".
quote:Brilliant! I hadn't thought of the "freak out the establishment" factor.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I would not vote for Trump in a fit, but if I were American, and a pollster asked me my intentions, I would be sorely tempted to say I was going to.
quote:The joke is rude? Or hanging up on you is rude?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sometimes when people ring trying to sell me solar panels, I try to sell them my new 'wave power in your bath' invention. Often, they just hang up before I can get the full joke out, which is rude.
quote:Except that some people are actually going to vote for him for this sort of reason. “Sticking it to the man” is an important element in Trump’s popularity.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Brilliant! I hadn't thought of the "freak out the establishment" factor.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I would not vote for Trump in a fit, but if I were American, and a pollster asked me my intentions, I would be sorely tempted to say I was going to.
quote:I am starting to believe that this 'Donald Trump' is in fact some kind of Performance Artist trying to constantly see how extreme far-right he can go and still find significant GOP support. I suspect that a communal sing-along of of 'Springtime for Hitler' isn't far off. Just watch whose lips move.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Except that some people are actually going to vote for him for this sort of reason. “Sticking it to the man” is an important element in Trump’s popularity.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Brilliant! I hadn't thought of the "freak out the establishment" factor.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I would not vote for Trump in a fit, but if I were American, and a pollster asked me my intentions, I would be sorely tempted to say I was going to.
quote:Wait-- you mean he hasn't yet???
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When he bursts into a chorus of "Throw the Jew down the well", all will be made clear...
quote:You are a blessing and a gift to all humanity.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I once managed to annoy and waste the time of a pestering telesales person so much that he actually swore at me, which I felt was a worthwhile achievement. While I'm wasting their time, they're not ringing some naive elderly widow and persuading her to part with her life savings.
quote:Dialing up strangers to sell them things they didn't request is rude. However, it also establishes the rules of acceptable decorum (or absence of same, as the case may be), for those who choose to treat responding as a game (which choice, in turn, is within the rules).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The joke is rude? Or hanging up on you is rude?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sometimes when people ring trying to sell me solar panels, I try to sell them my new 'wave power in your bath' invention. Often, they just hang up before I can get the full joke out, which is rude.
quote:Like.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
"Sorry, I'm not interested, thank you." [Click] is the most they ever get from me. If it's a robocall, then [Click] is all they get.
They're not calling me because they want to annoy me or play games with me. They're calling because this is probably the only job they could find in a hostile economy, and it sure beats living on the street and eating out of garbage cans.
I'm sure they're used to (even trained to expect) being hung up on. There's no reason why I, sitting in my comfortable chair in a well heated home munching on a snack I probably don't need, should play games with them when that's not the reason why they called.
quote:Bullshit. That's not Christian. Is it so hard to just say "I'm not interested" and hang up? This is like that dreary "War on Christmas" mindfuck. We need to pull up our big girl panties and deal. If the worst thing that happens to you in a day is somebody calls you up to sell you double glazing, are more fortunate than 99% of humanity.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My idea is that if you phone me, unsolicited and without my previous acquaintance, you are opening yourself to any response I care to make.
quote:You know, after everything that has happened this year, if this did in fact turn out to be true, I think my lack of shock would be the only thing to shock me. In the meantime, I am going to articulate a deep suspicion about the integrity of those polls.
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I am starting to believe that this 'Donald Trump' is in fact some kind of Performance Artist trying to constantly see how extreme far-right he can go and still find significant GOP support. I suspect that a communal sing-along of of 'Springtime for Hitler' isn't far off. Just watch whose lips move.
He will then (or possibly after securing the nomination) reveal himself to be Sasha Baron-Cohen in a funny wig (the campaign strategy seems to have been entirely based on the 'Borat' methodology).
quote:I really don't agree. Yes we do get double glazing and solar panel calls. But, most of the calls here are from criminals abroad trying to get access to your computer and/or your personal bank details. Or from bucket shops abroad trying to sell fake financial products. All these are criminal here but they are outside the range of our criminal law.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Bullshit. That's not Christian. Is it so hard to just say "I'm not interested" and hang up? This is like that dreary "War on Christmas" mindfuck. We need to pull up our big girl panties and deal. If the worst thing that happens to you in a day is somebody calls you up to sell you double glazing, are more fortunate than 99% of humanity.
quote:That's quite a good article.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A summary of Trump's dealings in Scotland. Home town boy makes good, eh?
quote:doesn't come from somebody being rude about Scotland. It comes from a well known Scottish journalist. I'm not Scottish, but as a statement it is a badge worn with pride.
"this notoriously fractious little country"
quote:When my niece was at university she worked in a call centre. I hope she wasn't treated as vermin.
Originally posted by Enoch:
But, most of the calls here are from criminals abroad trying to get access to your computer and/or your personal bank details. Or from bucket shops abroad trying to sell fake financial products. All these are criminal here but they are outside the range of our criminal law.
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:Boogie, there's a difference between a call centre that receives calls, and one that makes cold calls on people.
Originally posted by Boogie:
When my niece was at university she worked in a call centre. I hope she wasn't treated as vermin.
quote:Ew. The Donald couldn't have said it better. Or worse. Historically, calling other people "vermin" doesn't usually lead to hugs and puppies.
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:There are some telemarketers who are calling to sell you something you don't want, to get you to vote for a candidate, etc. It's a horrid job, and those who do it are not vermin but people who must be pretty hard up to take a job like that.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Ew. The Donald couldn't have said it better. Or worse. Historically, calling other people "vermin" doesn't usually lead to hugs and puppies.
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:Could have been that they knew that it would be dull, and predictable, and old, and white, and uninspiring, and that nobody would watch anyway...
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Supporters of the Democratic candidates who aren't Hilary Clinton are starting to ask why the DNC has scheduled its debates for Saturdays, especially today, when they will be going head to head against a rare Saturday night NFL game and every holiday party in the country. Almost like they don't want anyone to watch and become aware that there are other options.
quote:Yes, true. I find that amazing. What is Donny if not an establishment figure? He's apparently wealthy, he inherited a fortune from his father, who I have on vague authority was a New York slum lord who made his money dealing with Tammany Hall. Anyone know where he went to school?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Except that some people are actually going to vote for him for this sort of reason. “Sticking it to the man” is an important element in Trump’s popularity.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Brilliant! I hadn't thought of the "freak out the establishment" factor.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I would not vote for Trump in a fit, but if I were American, and a pollster asked me my intentions, I would be sorely tempted to say I was going to.
quote:Boy, one hates to go all Godwin, but calling people vermin is one step from calling them non-human. Nichtung.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:Yeah, only government is allowed to be a "slumlord", ostensibly because they do it with stolen money and not their own.
Originally posted by simontoad:
He's apparently wealthy, he inherited a fortune from his father, who I have on vague authority was a New York slum lord who made his money dealing with Tammany Hall.
quote:'Twas Enoch, not Boogie. (Who does bring hugs and puppies.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:Sorry it's taken me so long. Yes, media of any type can be biased, have an agenda, and distort the news.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--
Thanks for your explanation.
I listened to the radio show for years, and occasionally catch the TV version now. IME, Amy Goodman really does work hard at getting to the truth, and it's not necessarily what the mainstream media (of whatever stripe) comes up with.quote:Apologies, Boogie, for the UBB error.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:'Twas Enoch, not Boogie. (Who does bring hugs and puppies.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Perhaps you don't get this is the US, but these people are vermin and need to be handled as vermin.
quote:Saysay, I've never heard of any of the others you mention, but is the Huffington Post regarded in the US as 'lefty'?
Originally posted by saysay:
Golden Key -
I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful.
I used to read almost exclusively Lefty news sources (Huffpo, Salon, Slate, NPR among mainstream publications, Mother Jones, Alternet, ThinkProgress, etc.) They fit squarely with a lot of my ideological beliefs. ...
quote:Somewhat left of center, but not super lefty.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Saysay, I've never heard of any of the others you mention, but is the Huffington Post regarded in the US as 'lefty'?
quote:WTF?
The proprietrix
quote:AFAICT it's regarded as lefty in terms of the mainstream media (which, as Ruth notes, means left of center but not super lefty).
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Somewhat left of center, but not super lefty.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Saysay, I've never heard of any of the others you mention, but is the Huffington Post regarded in the US as 'lefty'?
quote:Seriously WTF? Or for effect?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:WTF?
The proprietrix
quote:What mousethief said.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Seriously WTF? Or for effect?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:WTF?
The proprietrix
(Proprietrix would be the female form of proprietor. It's a trifle affected, but I wouldn't have thought too obscure.)
quote:At the Learned Societies palooza in Ottawa last year, I sat through 20 minutes of an entomologists/linguists panel on this very topic. Apparently, dominatrix continues as legitimate (if problematic for one's confessor) and the aforementioned aviatrix has a kosher period usage, but other ixes are considered affected unless the intent is offensive. One panellist said that the ix ending has a greater legitimacy in Canada as there is a higher rate of Latinists (who knew that we had any at all?) and more people are accustomed to the French -ice (e.g. coordinatrice) ending. After all of this, a publisher friend told me that she found being described as an editrix amusing, but she was infuriated by being called a copy editor.
Originally posted by mousethief:
-ix endings are dead. Dragging it back to indicate the proprietor is female seems unnecessary and therefore sexist.
quote:They were discussing -ix endings in insect names?
Augustine the Aleut: At the Learned Societies palooza in Ottawa last year, I sat through 20 minutes of an entomologists/linguists panel on this very topic.
quote:My bad! Etymologists, of course. Still, at multi-disciplinary gatherings, who knows what happens after the panel shuts down!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:They were discussing -ix endings in insect names?
Augustine the Aleut: At the Learned Societies palooza in Ottawa last year, I sat through 20 minutes of an entomologists/linguists panel on this very topic.
quote:My suspicion is that most Hispanics will be calling him hijo de puta¹.
Augustine the Aleut: Still, if Mrs Clinton gets the final nod, we will then have the linguists argue if the Spanish-language version of her title would be presidenta or presidente. If Mr Trump gets it, one can only wonder what he might be called in Spanish.
quote:Sometimes getting the right word is important.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:My bad! Etymologists, of course. ...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:They were discussing -ix endings in insect names?
Augustine the Aleut: At the Learned Societies palooza in Ottawa last year, I sat through 20 minutes of an entomologists/linguists panel on this very topic.
quote:Spanish language Wikipedia uses "presidenta" for Argentina's Cristina Kirchner, and "senadora" for female US senators. This kind of question may be less significant for languages where all nouns are gendered.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Still, if Mrs Clinton gets the final nod, we will then have the linguists argue if the Spanish-language version of her title would be presidenta or presidente.
quote:Yeah, we're all bored with him until he starts blowing stuff up and throwing folks off the island.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(I'm bored with Trump)
quote:I can only really speak to Canadian French, where a non-gendered stance has been the preference for office (so we have Mme le président or Mlle le capitaine), but the cubicle mate of a coordinateur could well be a coordinatrice (this occasionally slides into francophone English and I have heard a professional respectfully presented as an engineeress-- a Calgary literary friend is still spluttering over having been introduced as Canada's leading poetess in English, to the applause of all).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
tangent/
Curiosity is getting the better of me, so I ask a genuine question, without googling. Is there a PC position on languages within which all nouns are gendered? Is it somehow seen as a "sign" of the culture within which such language conventions developed?
/tangent
(I'm bored with Trump)
quote:We've had "Madame Chairman" in English for many decades if not hundreds of years.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I can only really speak to Canadian French, where a non-gendered stance has been the preference for office (so we have Mme le président or Mlle le capitaine),
quote:In written Spanish or Portuguese, something like 'cociner@s' is sometimes used.
Augustine the Aleut: One of my activist friends has a written Castilian use of (e.g.) cocinerxs to include cocineros and cocineras but I don't know if this is relevant to your tangent.
quote:Well, OK.. I guess there could yet be a 'perfect storm' which could lead to a Trump presidency. That's a scary if very unlikely prospect. I'm not bored by that thought. But I am bored by his bullshit.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Yeah, we're all bored with him until he starts blowing stuff up and throwing folks off the island.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(I'm bored with Trump)
quote:If Cruz were black and a Democrat, Trump would be all over him for not having been born in the USA.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the last week or so it's looked like Cruz. He's the only one . . . not getting any of Trump's trademark "loser" jabs.
quote:Anyone remember Dan Quayle? Now he was a bit different as no one would make an attempt on President George Bush snr with J Danforth Quayle on deck. If anyone remotely plausible get the VP nomination on the Trump ticket, it might work the other way round and be bad for Trump.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Well, OK.. I guess there could yet be a 'perfect storm' which could lead to a Trump presidency. That's a scary if very unlikely prospect. I'm not bored by that thought. But I am bored by his bullshit.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Yeah, we're all bored with him until he starts blowing stuff up and throwing folks off the island.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(I'm bored with Trump)
Anyway. Here's a new train of thought. Suppose he does win the GOP nomination. Who will run with him for VP? Now that would be a real "clothes peg on the nose" choice for whoever made it.
quote:This was presaged by the Teabagger movement. People with no experience, but plenty of rhetoric, gained office. Trump is simply the reality TV extension of that. Combined with the general fear and dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[I've been following US Presidential politics since Kennedy but I don't think I've seen anything as surreal as this.]
quote:Cruz is ahead of Trump in the RCP average of Iowa polls, and is leading by 10 in the Des Moines Register poll, which has a reputation for being fairly accurate. It's still a month out, so no telling what that translates to on caucus day. But conventional wisdom is that Cruz' nice guy act is less about kissing up to Trump and more about not upsetting the people who currently support Trump, in hopes that he can pick them off in other states after he beats Trump in Iowa.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the last week or so it's looked like Cruz. He's the only one not gunning for Trump, and the only one not getting any of Trump's trademark "loser" jabs.
There. If that doesn't scare you heading into the New Year, I don't know what will. I'm just not sure if the appropriate response is to sober up or to drink that much harder...
quote:Yes, he is a dangerous person.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Nice article on polls, Ug.
Marco Rubio seems less crazy than many in the Republican camp. As a life-long liberal and wannabe socialist, is it bad that I think of him this way?
quote:Presuming that she likes him, his wife.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
George Pataki apparently got sick of 0% poll after 0% poll and dropped out today. Who do you suppose benefits the most?
quote:Is that the guy from the original Star Trek? Surely he's too old to be president.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
George Pataki apparently got sick of 0% poll after 0% poll and dropped out today. Who do you suppose benefits the most?
quote:In spite of my sentiments that prospective heads of government should actually have some governmental experience, I think that George Takei would be a very interesting president. There are no upper age limits in the US Constitution, so as the young folk say, he would be good to go.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Is that the guy from the original Star Trek? Surely he's too old to be president.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
George Pataki apparently got sick of 0% poll after 0% poll and dropped out today. Who do you suppose benefits the most?
quote:The petition (569,470 signatures) is going to be debated in parliament on January 18!
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The petition to ban Trump from the UK has now reached over 85,000 signatures - at 10,000 the government has to give some kind of response, at 100,000 it has to be considered for debate in parliament.
quote:Surely, he is the pinnacle of American erudition.
Man shot inside Paris police station. Just announced that terror threat is at highest level. Germany is a total mess-big crime. GET SMART!
quote:Borowitz is the New Yorker's resident satirist, although I can't tell you how many times his stuff has shown up on my Facebook news feed as "real news". This one was actually from three years ago, after Sandy Hook. The Representative "quoted" apparently was one of the guys who proposed eliminating gun free school zones in hopes that armed teachers and parents might be able to stop a mass shooting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
How about this headline in the New Yorker. I assume it's meant to be a spoof. After all, isn't that what the President is supposed to do?
"Republicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as President to Lead Country"
With statements like that he is “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country”, can this poor man do a thing right?
quote:I rather liked the Government's official comment, which was that the Home Secretary is just as troubled by Donald Trump's statements as the rest of you, but Parliament typically does not weigh in on individual immigration cases, for good reason.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to the Trump debate in the UK Parliament, my prediction is that there's no likelihood of his actually getting banned. Banning an ally's presidential candidate will be regarded by too many MPs as a step too far, and also as playing into his campaign's hands. However, he will be criticised by everybody, especially those who vote against banning him if it actually gets put to a vote, which it probably won't. I think it's fair to say that there's nobody in the UK political establishment who views the prospect of having to deal with President Trump with anything other than horror.
quote:I don't think he is ignorant. He's using a time-honoured formula of finding a scapegoat. Muslims instead of Jews, but same principal.
Originally posted by Sipech:
The latest contribution from Mr Ignorant, himself was this gem:quote:Surely, he is the pinnacle of American erudition.
Man shot inside Paris police station. Just announced that terror threat is at highest level. Germany is a total mess-big crime. GET SMART!
quote:I liked this response:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The latest contribution from Mr Ignorant, himself was this gem:quote:Surely, he is the pinnacle of American erudition.
Man shot inside Paris police station. Just announced that terror threat is at highest level. Germany is a total mess-big crime. GET SMART!
quote:(police-type TV shows, for the non-US Shipmates; "Get Smart"was a goofy spy/comedy show.)
Dave Itzkoff @ditzkoff 4h4 hours ago
.@realDonaldTrump I also enjoy GET SMART. But let's not underestimate POLICE SQUAD! And BROOKLYN 99.
quote:Is that supposed to discourage or encourage the UK to ban him - I'm not quite clear
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Trump threatens to take his money out of the UK if he is barred
quote:I think the UK would be a beacon of light to the nations if they told him to go shove his money.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Is that supposed to discourage or encourage the UK to ban him - I'm not quite clear
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Trump threatens to take his money out of the UK if he is barred
I'm a little confused that anyone might expect him to want to invest in a country he can't visit, though.
quote:Where do I send the check?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for Scotland, you probably could get some Americans to pay well if you let him in and then didn't let him out.
quote:Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin amongst others still get invitations. I suppose he'll be more welcome than those two.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
..... if by some weird stretch of the imagination, he was to win the Presidency, where on earth would he be welcome? Can you imagine HM Queen putting him up at the Palace or going for a ride in the early morning mist at Windsor.
quote:Reminds me of Goldfinger
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
The Donald may be ignorant and he may be ridiculous but basically he is a very rich American who is saying what quite a lot of Americans agree with! However, I cannot believe that even the most red-necked American would want him as their President. If he is the Republican candidate the Democrats would win absolutely everything! Presidency, Congress, the Senate, the lot. But if by some weird stretch of the imagination, he was to win the Presidency, where on earth would he be welcome? Can you imagine HM Queen putting him up at the Palace or going for a ride in the early morning mist at Windsor.
quote:He reminds me of Blofeld, right down to the cat on his head.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:Reminds me of Goldfinger
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
The Donald may be ignorant and he may be ridiculous but basically he is a very rich American who is saying what quite a lot of Americans agree with! However, I cannot believe that even the most red-necked American would want him as their President. If he is the Republican candidate the Democrats would win absolutely everything! Presidency, Congress, the Senate, the lot. But if by some weird stretch of the imagination, he was to win the Presidency, where on earth would he be welcome? Can you imagine HM Queen putting him up at the Palace or going for a ride in the early morning mist at Windsor.
quote:I’m not sure how much Hillary should worry about that; obviously, it’s the first big test but Bernie is from Vermont. Vermont and New Hampshire are like two old siblings living together--constantly squabbling, but more alike than either would care to admit. Sanders knows how to talk to them.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I note also that Bernie Sanders has a significant and increased poll lead over Hillary in New Hampshire.
quote:Will anyone notice?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I understand that Rand Paul will refuse to participate.
quote:Been hearing that since the summer.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The guy is just cruising along on the last 20 seconds or so of his prolonged 15 minutes.
quote:The other problem is that the real answers are complex to outline, slow to be deployed and cannot be guaranteed.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Part of the problem is that he is skilled at the schoolyard bully game. You can come at him with what you thought was a well-thought-out attack, but somehow he will have his cronies laughing at you before you know what went wrong. Then the media starts breathlessly reporting his outrageous comeback and he dominates the news cycle again.
The other problem is that his supporters seem to rally most when he is under attack. I have even read suggestions that his best strategy might be to come out with a new outrageous statement along the lines of the Muslim travel ban shortly before the Iowa caucus, allow the media to react, and watch his base come to his defense.
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
The most effective anti-Trump tactic would, of course, be a total media boycott. The media have throughout his candidacy been total suckers to His Royal Brattiness.
quote:OKB hits the nail on the head. "The media" (however defined) aren't "total suckers" for Trump, they've been laughing all the way to the high ratings bank. The job of for-profit media organizations isn't to pick and choose the 'right' Republican presidential nominee, it's to increase profits through higher ratings.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Just look at how many Trump related articles we have clicked on and shared here. Everyone loves reading about the guy, even if the mere thought of him having a chance at winning scares the hell out of us.
quote:Well, I for one change channels whenever news of Trump comes on. Trouble is, I'm running out of channels to change to.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"The media" (however defined) aren't "total suckers" for Trump, they've been laughing all the way to the high ratings bank.
quote:Everyone said all that of a silly little man with a moustache.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Not me. I love laughing at Trump, and then clicking the heels of my sparkly red shoes while saying "Trump won't become President, Trump won't become President."
I do think that Trump won't become President. Surely he will be the best form of spur to voting for his opponents. Surely America's minorities will come out in droves if Trump is the candidate.
quote:Not so tough a calculation for the dims.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, Trump at least does distract from the appalling nature of the rest of the Republican candidates. It's hard to figure out which one is least loathsome.
quote:The old white one...the only one they've got.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So who is it, then?
quote:I think that's the most dangerous part of Trump's candidacy-- it lowers the bar for reasonableness. Standing next to Trump makes the other candidates seem benign and normal, allows their only slightly less hate-filled/ insane rhetoric sound plausible. I'm with Rue that a Trump candidacy is a win for the DNC regardless of who we end up putting forward. But the danger is instead that we'll get Cruz or Carson or Rubio (each of which is quite problematic in a number of ways) but because Trump has been drawing all the fire for months, their destructive politics won't rise to the public attn in time to defeat them.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, Trump at least does distract from the appalling nature of the rest of the Republican candidates. It's hard to figure out which one is least loathsome.
quote:Don't kid yourself. Reagan didn't just get elected, he got re-elected. Not bad for someone who was out-acted by an ape.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would have thought you could probably stick a blue rosette on a donkey and consider it a shoo-in.
quote:And who ran the country based on his wife's astrologer's advice.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Don't kid yourself. Reagan didn't just get elected, he got re-elected. Not bad for someone who was out-acted by an ape.
quote:She should be okay as long as she keeps to slamming Bernie.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Chelsea Clinton has started making appearances for her mother, stating that Sanders is planning on dismantling Obamacare and Medicare.
quote:I may be missing something. Dims?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Not so tough a calculation for the dims.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, Trump at least does distract from the appalling nature of the rest of the Republican candidates. It's hard to figure out which one is least loathsome.
quote:Trust me, you're not missing anything.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I may be missing something. Dims?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Not so tough a calculation for the dims.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, Trump at least does distract from the appalling nature of the rest of the Republican candidates. It's hard to figure out which one is least loathsome.
quote:The party of swift-boating and the Willie Horton ad would "pound" any Democratic candidate.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... if Hillary is the nominee she is going to get pounded.
quote:Just like the last election when the Republicans knew Obama was going to get pounded.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Their bench is worse than empty, it's non-existent, and if Hillary is the nominee she is going to get pounded.
quote:Quite the opposite, actually. Obama was (and still is) completely unknown.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Just like the last election when the Republicans knew Obama was going to get pounded.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Their bench is worse than empty, it's non-existent, and if Hillary is the nominee she is going to get pounded.
quote:Could be you are...
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I may be missing something. Dims?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Not so tough a calculation for the dims.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, Trump at least does distract from the appalling nature of the rest of the Republican candidates. It's hard to figure out which one is least loathsome.
quote:As in bright people don't support Republicans.
Originally posted by romanlion:
As in the opposite of bright...
quote:Yeah, well, we're just matching the level of debate among the Republican candidates. If the Democrats would schedule one at a time when people might actually watch, we might do better.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Glad the level of conversation and debate here has managed to keep out of the name calling department, and the junior-high school taunts. Until now.
quote:Have we had any presidents who weren't deeply flawed??
Originally posted by romanlion:
It's funny because for all the talk about how a Trump nomination would doom the GOP and Hillary would be a lock, Hillary is a deeply flawed human being (never mind candidate) and if the dims actually nominate a self-described socialist, they are done for at least a generation.
Their bench is worse than empty, it's non-existent, and if Hillary is the nominee she is going to get pounded.
quote:To be fair, the term "tea-bagger" gets thrown about quite a bit without objection. I think I also read "gun fellator" in a different thread recently. "Clown-car" was pretty frequently used in this thread too. Quite a few others as well, if you read through the thread.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Yeah, well, we're just matching the level of debate among the Republican candidates. If the Democrats would schedule one at a time when people might actually watch, we might do better.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Glad the level of conversation and debate here has managed to keep out of the name calling department, and the junior-high school taunts. Until now.
quote:On the last page alone we had "Mr. Ignorant", "Human Ebola", and a reference to "Red-necked Americans".
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:To be fair, the term "tea-bagger" gets thrown about quite a bit without objection. I think I also read "gun fellator" in a different thread recently. "Clown-car" was pretty frequently used in this thread too. Quite a few others as well, if you read through the thread.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Yeah, well, we're just matching the level of debate among the Republican candidates. If the Democrats would schedule one at a time when people might actually watch, we might do better.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Glad the level of conversation and debate here has managed to keep out of the name calling department, and the junior-high school taunts. Until now.
quote:There are some of us whose memory actually goes back three-and-a-half years to the ancient and mist-shrouded days when Republicans just "knew" that all the polls were skewed, that they had the secret sauce for "unskewing" them, and that the obvious result was a Mitt Romney landslide. We also remember how Mitt "I only need to write a victory speech" Romney was totally blindsided by his loss.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Quite the opposite, actually. Obama was (and still is) completely unknown.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Just like the last election when the Republicans knew Obama was going to get pounded.
quote:Let's go back, though, and consider the link I posted at the bottom of the last page. Clinton surrogates are out there telling folks that Sanders will dismantle Medicare, without mentioning that he actually wants to expand it to cover everyone.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Yeah, well, we're just matching the level of debate among the Republican candidates. If the Democrats would schedule one at a time when people might actually watch, we might do better.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Glad the level of conversation and debate here has managed to keep out of the name calling department, and the junior-high school taunts. Until now.
quote:No, if you are truly being fair, you would also note that these comments are at least sometimes accompanied by supportive statements.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
To be fair, the term "tea-bagger" gets thrown about quite a bit without objection. I think I also read "gun fellator" in a different thread recently. "Clown-car" was pretty frequently used in this thread too. Quite a few others as well, if you read through the thread.
quote:Still juvenile name calling.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, if you are truly being fair, you would also note that these comments are at least sometimes accompanied by supportive statements.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
To be fair, the term "tea-bagger" gets thrown about quite a bit without objection. I think I also read "gun fellator" in a different thread recently. "Clown-car" was pretty frequently used in this thread too. Quite a few others as well, if you read through the thread.
quote:Curious to assert that Obama is "completely unknown". Despite his misfortune of having been sucked into the leadership vacuum left by eight years of G.W. Bush and his business partners, and being dumped upon constantly by a cynical and destructive Republican party, at least he'll be remembered as a president who tried, unlike his pitiable predecessor who wasn't even capable of trying, and who had no notion of what it meant to be the leader of the most dangerous nation on earth.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Quite the opposite, actually. Obama was (and still is) completely unknown.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Just like the last election when the Republicans knew Obama was going to get pounded.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Their bench is worse than empty, it's non-existent, and if Hillary is the nominee she is going to get pounded.
Hillary is completely known, she just hasn't been advertised as such yet...
She's fucked, win or lose...
quote:Arguably, this was supposed to be Obama's year, but he jumped ahead in line, and everyone else was pretty much expected to stand down to give Clinton a second shot.
Originally posted by HCH:
I am actually disappointed in the "benches" of both parties.
The Democrats have several people who want the job and are arguably as qualified as most candidates, but they are rather old. Where are the comparatively young, bright Democrats? Who is waiting in the wings to run in 2020 or 2024 or 2028?
quote:Once again, Obama comes to mind...
Originally posted by HCH:
junior senators who have accomplished nothing at the national level. Almost none of the Republican candidates have qualifications such as experience in the Foreign Service or in the Vice Presidency or in the cabinet.
quote:From what I have seen so far, juvenile name calling is a fair summary of the campaigning so far, so it should be no surprise that it is reflected in this thread.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Still juvenile name calling.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, if you are truly being fair, you would also note that these comments are at least sometimes accompanied by supportive statements.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
To be fair, the term "tea-bagger" gets thrown about quite a bit without objection. I think I also read "gun fellator" in a different thread recently. "Clown-car" was pretty frequently used in this thread too. Quite a few others as well, if you read through the thread.
quote:On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired. Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
Originally posted by HCH:
I am actually disappointed in the "benches" of both parties.
The Democrats have several people who want the job and are arguably as qualified as most candidates, but they are rather old. Where are the comparatively young, bright Democrats? Who is waiting in the wings to run in 2020 or 2024 or 2028?
The Republicans have plenty of people who want the job, but it's hard to find anyone impressive on the list: governors who are wildly unpopular in their own states and junior senators who have accomplished nothing at the national level. Almost none of the Republican candidates have qualifications such as experience in the Foreign Service or in the Vice Presidency or in the cabinet. I don't see a retired general on the list.
I think it would be fun if some prestigious executive-search firm would analyze the job, decide on a list of qualifications and evaluate the candidates (of all parties). Such a firm should not be from then U.S. but from somewhere else such as Switzerland or Australia. The results might be very entertaining.
quote:It's almost as if no one is running against Hillary for the Democratic nomination...
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A lot of my normally democrat friends who used to like Hillary now intensely dislike her because she comes across as totally establishment, it's all about whatever benefits big business. (To be fair, you've got be pro big business and their interests to get enough money to run for this office.)
But none of the Republicans are any better.
quote:We've had good (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and bad (Ulysses S. Grant).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired.
quote:I think it would take a constitutional amendment.
Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
quote:Not to mention George Washington, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor. A mixed bag to be sure. On the other side of the Atlantic Wellington served as PM. From what I've read he seemed to do a good job and helped push for Catholic Emancipation.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:We've had good (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and bad (Ulysses S. Grant).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired.
quote:I think it would take a constitutional amendment.
Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
quote:The issue is not the quality of the individuals themselves, it is the risk that that military leaders start to see themselves as political powerbrokers. I take your point Brenda, but of course the vast majority of military personnel are not command level - and those who bear the brunt of poor political and military decisions will tend to be the lower ranks.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Not to mention George Washington, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor. A mixed bag to be sure. On the other side of the Atlantic Wellington served as PM. From what I've read he seemed to do a good job and helped push for Catholic Emancipation.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:We've had good (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and bad (Ulysses S. Grant).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired.
quote:I think it would take a constitutional amendment.
Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
quote:If you are predisposed to mistrust someone. for whatever reason, you can't really get to know them because you mistrust any information you get about them which is in any way positive.
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Curious to assert that Obama is "completely unknown".
quote:Grant is a great example of how strength in one area does not confer strength in all.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Grant for all his faults as President, was the general that won the civil war.
quote:Sure. Maybe a mixture of hyperbole and head-nodding towards His Bobship?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But he said Obama is "completely unknown", not that he didn't know anything good about him. I think it's safe to assume that romanlion has heard lots of bad things about Obama, just as he has about Clinton; mere mistrust of Obama should present no obstacle to his "knowing" those things.
quote:One could argue that Grant and Trump had comparable skills in business; it's just that the bankruptcy laws are far more lenient today.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Grant is a great example of how strength in one area does not confer strength in all.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Grant for all his faults as President, was the general that won the civil war.
And an illustration that even were Trump* the businessman he claims to be, it does not then confer the ability to be a good president.
*Actually, he is about half as successful as he should be. And about a quarter as much as he claims.
quote:Nope, it's not. But gambling is legal only in certain jurisdictions-- most notably Nevada, of course.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is Poker really banned in the US? It isn't here.
quote:Unlike Congress, who are trying their best to do absolutely nothing.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama is genuinely trying to do his best for the country.
quote:Why? What are these principles?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired. Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
quote:US presidents with a military command background are all over the map politically-- both Truman and Kennedy commanded men in the field (or the water), but Johnson and Reagan had not. With the end of conscription and the increasing rarity of children of the élite in the forces, it may well be that those of command rank will in the future increasingly be immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Why? What are these principles?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired. Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
(Of course, we have fairly recent precedent for the highest office: Eisenhower made a fair president, and I don't see any slippery slopes in his successors.)
Would you also disqualify a retired civil servant from seeking elected office? A retired police officer?
quote:The Democrats are shockingly short of players on the national stage and in the statehouses. They've not only lost seats in the House and Senate, they don't hold a lot of governorships or seats in state legislatures. They don't have a back bench for presidential candidates because they can't get people elected at the state level.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It is sad that there isn't a stronger back bench to provide candidates for the Democrats. Part of that is losing the House seats makes it harder to build that back bench.
quote:To be honest I'd like a few retired military officers in the cabinet amongst the assorted of lawyers, business owners and political hacks we have at Westminster now. They are a varied bunch but I fear those who would be best for the country would be unacceptable to any political party.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Why? What are these principles?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On general principles, I think it is a bad idea to permit anyone who reaches command rank in the military to run for political office - even if retired. Ideally, I'd like it written into law as a disqualifying condition - it is a truly terrible precedent / slippery slope for a democracy.
(Of course, we have fairly recent precedent for the highest office: Eisenhower made a fair president, and I don't see any slippery slopes in his successors.)
Would you also disqualify a retired civil servant from seeking elected office? A retired police officer?
quote:If I might descend into anecdotology (intellectual laziness, perhaps, as there is lots of demographic research out there about US forces), many of the young people, including officers, whom I have met while heading about the US on time-consuming, plane-changing, amtrak-waiting trips, are Hispanic or southern African American, or southern white, with a good sprinkling of Filipino, Thai & Vietnamese. Most of the whites I have spoken with are from poor backgrounds - I remember one Arkansavian naval lieutenant telling me that she was the first in her family to make it past tenth grade; like the others, they view the military as the best and only way up and out of their backgrounds. It provides them with training, education, and benefits (one friend calls it the only efficiently functioning socialism in the Americas), and an avenue for promotion if they apply themselves. I have been told by Black recruits that it's the only place where they can be certain they will be judged on their own merits. One of them did mention that, if I wanted to understand where they had started from, I had to realize that army food was a wonderful experience for them.
Originally posted by Prester John:
The military's officer corps is overwhelmingly white and has been so for some time. I remember reading an article in the WSJ that described the majority of the Army's officer corps during Clinton's administration as small-town Southern whites, just like the president. The combat arms, infantry, armor & artillery, and especially the elite forces are overwhelming white- both officers and the rank and file. As officers with combat experience are given preferment for advancement the conditions I described will not be changing anytime soon.
quote:And much more recent when one considers Viet Nam, including politicians such as John McCain and John Kerry.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And recall that it is within living memory that a large number of men in the population fought (in WW2)...
quote:That's a bit of an understatement. There was as fairly long stretch of time when most VFW posts would not accept Vietnam veterans as members. The official reason was that since the Vietnam War was never officially declared, it didn't count as a "real" foreign war. The much more likely explanation is that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War and this "very conservative, pro-military group" regarded the veterans from that war as losers (and likely drug addicts). At any rate, eventually most (all?) VFW posts reversed this policy, but a lot of bitterness still persists among Vietnam veterans over what they see as a cynical move to bolster sagging membership.
Originally posted by Carex:
One statistic I saw was that the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars - a very conservative, pro-military group) has been relying on aging WW2 veterans, and the smaller group from the Korean War, to keep the posts running, as recruitment from Vietnam war veterans was very low.
quote:I'd like to say "Failed VP nominee endorses Presidential hopeful" but I fear the failure may not rub off.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sarah Palin to endorse Donald Trump
quote:An even more apt emoji might be
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Apparently he's hinted at a Cabinet post for her -- and she wants to be Secretary of Energy.
quote:Are you implying that she'll mismanage things so badly that we'll have to resort to using candlelight? Hmmm ... good point.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:An even more apt emoji might be
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Apparently he's hinted at a Cabinet post for her -- and she wants to be Secretary of Energy.
quote:Let's see:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Apparently he's hinted at a Cabinet post for her -- and she wants to be Secretary of Energy.
quote:Or that a Trump candidacy with Palin in the cabinet would be so globally disastrous that all we can do is pray for the sweet release of death...
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:Are you implying that she'll mismanage things so badly that we'll have to resort to using candlelight? Hmmm ... good point.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:An even more apt emoji might be
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Apparently he's hinted at a Cabinet post for her -- and she wants to be Secretary of Energy.
quote:What I heard at the time was WW2 bunch rejected the VN bunch on the basis that Viet vets didn't really fight a war since they got to come home after one year instead of staying for the duration.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's a bit of an understatement. There was as fairly long stretch of time when most VFW posts would not accept Vietnam veterans as members.
Originally posted by Carex:
One statistic I saw was that the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars - a very conservative, pro-military group) has been relying on aging WW2 veterans, and the smaller group from the Korean War, to keep the posts running, as recruitment from Vietnam war veterans was very low.
quote:But she'll still be able to see Russia from her house.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:Are you implying that she'll mismanage things so badly that we'll have to resort to using candlelight? Hmmm ... good point.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An even more apt emoji might be
, she might see it from Blair House. (Often the residence of the VP.) Or at least see the Russian embassy.
quote:This was, AIUI, my father's experience. He went over to Vietnam at the very end, and only stayed in country for nine months, which somehow precluded him from the VFW.
What I heard at the time was WW2 bunch rejected the VN bunch on the basis that Viet vets didn't really fight a war since they got to come home after one year instead of staying for the duration.
quote:Which would be convincing if the VFW applied the same policy to Korean War Veterans, but they didn't.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What I heard at the time was WW2 bunch rejected the VN bunch on the basis that Viet vets didn't really fight a war since they got to come home after one year instead of staying for the duration.
quote:Given that the VFW didn't apply the "you didn't stay for the duration" argument (to my knowledge) to Korean War veterans it sounds more like post facto thrashing for a pretext to justify a decision made on other grounds.
A tour of duty in Korea depended upon proximity to the fighting. Rear-echelon forces (67% of Army personnel) served 18 months. Combat troops (33% of the Army) fought for nine to 12 months.
quote:Sarah Palin reckons Obamacare doesn't go far enough???
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sarah Palin's son Trapp was arrested on charges of domestic violence, yesterday. Sarah says it's Obama's fault for not providing more care for soldiers returning from Iraq.
quote:Further, the GOP has spent the last 7 years vetoing every bill seeking to provide better care for vets, including in particular, bills to provide mental health services-- the VA is desperately understaffed/ underfunded here. But no, to Palin et al, it's all Obama's fault.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Sarah Palin reckons Obamacare doesn't go far enough???
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sarah Palin's son Trapp was arrested on charges of domestic violence, yesterday. Sarah says it's Obama's fault for not providing more care for soldiers returning from Iraq.
quote:Sarah also intimated that soldiers coming back from Iraq & Afghanistan are prone to violence. What a slap in the face to all military who come back and don't assault their spouses. Of course she's endorsing the guy who called McCain a loser, a slap in the face to all who sacrificed as POWs. These two deserve each other. Fortunately, according to interviews I saw, a lot of Trump supporters don't like Palin.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sarah Palin's son Trapp was arrested on charges of domestic violence, yesterday. Sarah says it's Obama's fault for not providing more care for soldiers returning from Iraq.
quote:He probably reckons that Trump is all bluster and would be spectacularly ineffective. Cruz might actually do some damage.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Interestingly Bob Dole has said that he'd rather have Trump than Cruz.
quote:Sounds a bit like the old "would you rather..." game. As in, "would you rather staple your tongue or cut off your little toe?"
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
What he said was that Trump was a deal-maker who would work with Congress if push came to shove, whereas Cruz was an "extremist" whom "nobody likes".
quote:so... staple your tongue, then?
Originally posted by Prester John:
Bob Dole prefers candidates with unusual speech patterns.
quote:The blame-Obama meme is so popular among American conservatives they've been able to fly almost anything-- from the common cold to WW1. But Palin's claim here was particularly thin, given that a. Obama inherited the war; and; b. the Republicans (despite their rah-rah pro-military rhetoric) have blocked every bill attempting to increase funding for the VA and provide better mental health services for our vets.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Palin got some blowback today for her blaming Obama and the war for her son's domestic violence from other veterans. They feel he's responsible for his own actions and it's wrong to blame anyone else for them. Glad to see it.
quote:They do not need to be. It would be to their deficit to use either logic or reason. Fear mongering and scapegoating are much more effective.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, neither Trump nor Palin are particularly known for their brilliant logic.
quote:To quote H.L.Mencken accurately (and I know because I've looked it up somewhere other than Wikipedia) he said:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They do not need to be. It would be to their deficit to use either logic or reason. Fear mongering and scapegoating are much more effective.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, neither Trump nor Palin are particularly known for their brilliant logic.
quote:There is, however, some evidence that domestic violence rates are higher amongst veterans: http://www.ptsdupdate.com/violence-veterans-fact-fiction/ though risk factors vary.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:Sarah also intimated that soldiers coming back from Iraq & Afghanistan are prone to violence. What a slap in the face to all military who come back and don't assault their spouses. Of course she's endorsing the guy who called McCain a loser, a slap in the face to all who sacrificed as POWs. These two deserve each other. Fortunately, according to interviews I saw, a lot of Trump supporters don't like Palin.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sarah Palin's son Trapp was arrested on charges of domestic violence, yesterday. Sarah says it's Obama's fault for not providing more care for soldiers returning from Iraq.
quote:I'd be interested
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My daughter and her husband are Gulf War veterans; my son is in Army Reserve. My daughter was one of the top ROTC cadets of 2007, and she was sworn into the Armed Forces by George W. Bush. I have a PR photo of the event, a hundred of the ROTC best and brightest standing behind George W. at the podium. (If there is interest I can post a link to it here.) Analysis of the image is instructive. All the tall white boys are arrayed to either side. In the middle, directly in camera shot when you focus on the President, are the girls and the cadets of ethnicity. If you look at George, my daughter's beaming face is just over his left shoulder.
quote:Thank you -- I shouldn't post before coffee. Would it be possible to delete the wrong one? Thanks!
Originally posted by Gwai:
Suspect this is the one intended
quote:Since that is definitely what you meant, I can (and have) edited your post to put the correct link in. I just didn't want to do it when I didn't know for sure.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Thank you -- I shouldn't post before coffee. Would it be possible to delete the wrong one? Thanks!
Originally posted by Gwai:
Suspect this is the one intended
quote:
All of which can only lead to one conclusion - Mr Trump is now going to be extremely difficult to stop.
This might help explain why Republican grandees are starting to make their first tentative moves towards Mr Trump.
quote:Whose vote is he splitting? Reading his Wikipedia page, his politics look closer to Clinton than Cruz or Trump.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Sweet! Split the vote as much as possible!
quote:The GOP is certainly fucked up. You can argue that the entire system is incredibly faulty, but to pretend that the GOP is anything other than a major part of the problem is imbecilic.
Originally posted by romanlion:
People who think the GOP is fucked this cycle aren't paying attention...
quote:If Trump gets the nomination and is successful then while the party may not be fucked I am certain the USA will be. He'll probably drag the rest of us down with him.
Originally posted by romanlion:
10 pages of Trump....isn't that enough for a candidate whom hasn't garnered a single vote yet?
How about the dimocrat nominee?
A lying sack of shit who can't be trusted with national security secrets, and who worked to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of sexual assault, and who solicited/received donations to her foundation while SOSOTUS from known human rights abusers....
Anyone? Hello?...
If the dimocrats are concerned about their future as a party they should be scrambling for a way to jettison Hillary...and quickly...
People who think the GOP is fucked this cycle aren't paying attention...
quote:And this is a great deal of why Trump is the absolute worst choice of any option. He represents one of the worst traits of our species. He is bad for America and for the rest of the world. Except for terrorists. He is good for them.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I see that the faction of the Republican party now apparently in favour of befriending Trump is making the same mistake as the Weimar republic did with Hitler. They think they can profit from his populist appeal without countenancing the basis of that appeal. Once you legitimize hatred and anti-Semitism (Jews are not the only Semites) then you have sold the pass.
quote:Commonplace, indeed. Most of what I see is folks rambling on about who they will be voting against, not for. I will not vote for Hilary and romanlion's description of her seems quite apt and is part of the many reasons I won't. She is too much of a Leona Helmsley. I will be voting against Hilary. If the Republican nominee turns out to be, like in professional rassling, a masked man from parts unknown, fine. Whatever one can say about any of the current Republican field, not one of them is Hilary and, therefore, would be a better choice.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion's point, I guess, is that if the GOP is well on the way to scuppering its chances by choosing an emetic candidate, aren't the Democrats well on the way to doing the same? Which of two lousy candidates disgust you the least? Who can tell which way the electorate would vote in that case?
I think it's an aspect of the Peter principles that large organisations can often be similar to septic tanks. The choicest pieces of effluent tend to float to the top. Good people rarely make it.
I guess there is always the danger of that, so voting for the least worst option is probably quite commonplace.
quote:There will be one Democrat ticket (President and Vice President) and one Republican ticket (President and Vice President). As mentioned yesterday, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, is considering running as an Independent. There will probably be a few candidates from the Green Party and/or parties no one has ever heard of. This list will show you how successful independent and minor party candidates have done in the past.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not my call. Not my election. But I find that extraordinary. Am I right that you only get an either/or choice of two, that there are no other options?.
quote:There will be more, I'm sure. Gary Johnson is running, for example, and I prefer him but doubt he will get 1% of the vote. And, yes, I'm sure there will be nose holders voting for Hilary, as well.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not my call. Not my election. But I find that extraordinary. Am I right that you only get an either/or choice of two, that there are no other options?. However distasteful you might find her, surely given a choice of Trump or Mrs Clinton, wouldn't any elector hold their nose and vote for Mrs Clinton?
quote:From this side of the Pond, knowing more about Trump (from his miserable forays into Scotland) than Cruz I'm inclined to agree. However, from my (entirely non-representative) facebook friends who are sharing stuff on the nomination race, as well as links shared here such as Barnabas62's above, the impression I got was that in general it's the opposite - as Barnabas's link posits, Cruz is unthinkable to the GOP establishment (presumably because of all the obnoxious Dominionist stuff), whereas at least Trump is 'biddable' (whatever that means. I suspect it means 'thick as two short planks, so perceived as easier to manipulate').
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I cannot think that any candidate would be worse than Trump. It is notable that Republicans are even willing ton contemplate Cruz, who everybody hates, rather than Trump. Trump is a truly dangerous man.
quote:Unfortunately, he hasn't lost his grip on reality. He just knows his audience (the sad part is the statement is probably true).
Originally posted by simontoad:
With Trump, what sort of bloke says that he wouldn't lose any popularity if he shot someone? A serious egotist who is losing his grip on reality.
quote:How do YOU think it plays???
Originally posted by saysay:
Neither she nor Bernie seem to understand how their promise of free college plays to most Americans at this point...
quote:It's certainly popular among people who either have huge amounts of student debt or are trying to figure out how they're going to send their kids through school. Which are most of the chattering class who get media air time.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, what do you mean by this
quote:How do YOU think it plays???
Originally posted by saysay:
Neither she nor Bernie seem to understand how their promise of free college plays to most Americans at this point...
From where I'm sitting, that seems to be the most popular platform either party is presenting, for obvious reasons. But it sounds like you think otherwise?
quote:Of course policy matters, Barnabas. I prefer a candidate who most clearly advocates classical liberalism and right now it looks like Gary Johnson. However, the next president will come from one of the two main parties. There's still plenty of time between now and our primary to determine which party's primary I will vote in and for who.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't a candidate's policies factor into your thinking, Mere Nick? Is it all about your perception of their characters. Perceptions can be manipulated.
quote:Media coverage.
Originally posted by Erik:
What do US shipmate think it would take for an independent candidate to genuinely have a significant chance of getting elected?
quote:The first-past-the-post method makes voting for a third party candidate risky in any case. While he might not be able to get a majority in very red or very blue states, he would have a harder time getting votes in more balanced states because not voting for your favored major-party candidate may allow the other major-party candidate to win - the classic problem of splitting the vote.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... the vast majority of states cast their electoral votes on a first-past-the-post winner take all basis, so he might struggle in very red or very blue states...
quote:The problem with the American political landscape is that one of the people (Clinton) advocating for this particular form of "middle class welfare" previously strongly advocated for welfare reform in spite of being warned that it would plunge millions of children into poverty (she also has a lot to answer for when it comes to her support for mandatory minimums and other criminal justice reforms that filled our prisons - often to the benefit of private corporations - and devastated many communities).
Originally posted by simontoad:
ahh, the ole middle class welfare line... We get that in Australia all the time. It's very powerful. I hate and despise the argument with every fibre of my being. I rail against it at every chance I get, but not this one. It's a good answer to an apt question.
My issue is that this argument would play well to right-leaning voters who are already prejudiced against welfare and likely to vote republican, but how would it play in other sorts of communities where people are trying to drag themselves out of welfare-dependency?
quote:Oh, believe me, we have. On our knees.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd be begging Elizabeth Warren to run
quote:I wouldn't say this is the problem with the American political landscape, but otherwise I could not agree more.
Originally posted by saysay:
The problem with the American political landscape is that one of the people (Clinton) advocating for this particular form of "middle class welfare" previously strongly advocated for welfare reform in spite of being warned that it would plunge millions of children into poverty (she also has a lot to answer for when it comes to her support for mandatory minimums and other criminal justice reforms that filled our prisons - often to the benefit of private corporations - and devastated many communities).
So, the thing is, it comes off as something somewhere between pandering and class warfare.
quote:Not to be snarky, but it doesn't seem to me that there is a functional concept of leftist politics in America anymore. It isn't just the conservatives who've moved right.
Originally posted by RuthW:
given how far I am to the left of the general public.
quote:I typed "bernie sanders smiling" into Google images. It returned pictures of Bernie Sanders, smiling.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for Sanders supporters: Is he perpetually grumpy??
quote:The Australian ballot is also the name for the secret ballot, as late-Victorians blamed this unmanly innovation on the Australians. Before 1880, Canadians voted by identifying themselves to the returning officer and declaring their choice in front of him and each candidate's scrutineers, which was then marked down in a poll book.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Australian ballot"? Is that ranked-choice voting?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Of course policy matters, Barnabas. I prefer a candidate who most clearly advocates classical liberalism and right now it looks like Gary Johnson. However, the next president will come from one of the two main parties. There's still plenty of time between now and our primary to determine which party's primary I will vote in and for who.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't a candidate's policies factor into your thinking, Mere Nick? Is it all about your perception of their characters. Perceptions can be manipulated.
quote:So I take it that Donald Trump effectively rules himself out from getting your vote by advocating such extreme policies? That's not exactly a classic liberalism proposal. Never mind "live and let live". That's worse than "live and let die".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And more fun from this episode of "Tantrum Of The Donald":
"Donald Trump said he'd kill terrorists' families at a rally. His crowd went wild." (Vox)
quote:He does seem to be grumpy a lot. And there are rumors he's an unpleasant boss to work for.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for Sanders supporters: Is he perpetually grumpy??
quote:George W. Bush only seemed "jovial" if you deliberately ignored his fairly deep vicious streak and was only a "guy you'd like to go out for a beer with" if you deliberately ignored the fact that he was a recovering alcoholic. (Or if you like seeing what happens when an alcoholic falls off the wagon.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:He does seem to be grumpy a lot. And there are rumors he's an unpleasant boss to work for.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for Sanders supporters: Is he perpetually grumpy??
But we've already tried electing a jovial guy who seems likable and the sort of guy you'd like to go out for a beer with. We tried it first with Reagan and then again with W. The results were disastrous.
quote:No idea whether that's true in his case or not. He's a man I know even nearer to next to nothing about. But as a general criterion for evaluating public figures, I regard that as an important one.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... And there are rumors he's an unpleasant boss to work for. ...
quote:Obviously, one has to try to assess evidence which is all likely to be contaminated by the standpoint of the person passing it on. But if there were persistent accounts that a person shrieked 'you're fired' at members of staff he or she randomly took against, rather than laid people off more considerately, I'd take that into account.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But whose testimony would you trust? Those who are still on his payroll? Those who have had 'you're fired' shrieked at them?
.
quote:A US friend of mine was once similarly unhappy about the choice of candidates until a pedantic acquaintance (not I, of course) pointed out that she did not vote for the candidates, but for presidential electors. She was in one of the states where one could vote for an individual elector or for a list, so she spent an idle afternoon googling around until she found some favourites among the electoral college candidates for whom she could cheerfully vote. I am not sure if this continues to be the case or if this be possible in the state where you live, but it is a possible way ahead for some.
Originally posted by The Riv:
I may very well be among those who do not vote in the coming Presidential election. Looking at the candidates leaves me
quote:At least Rob Ford admitted he had a problem and left office.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
This all sounds so familiar.
Without the crack cocaine use.
quote:
Fox’s statement said that network officials “had learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if the becomes president.”
The statement added that Trump “has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”
quote:This simply doesn't bear thinking about.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Said it last summer - underestimating this populism thing is the best way to lose. If the Dems's don't take Trump seriously, he will be President.
quote:Trump's candidacy is not based on his policies, its based on his popularity. His popularity is built on his air of success. He's not a politician first. He's a success wanting to lead. That's something very different that hasn't been seen in US politics since Eisenhower and before that the various generals that became President in the 1800's. The fact that his current success is actually due to his popularity isn't thought through - guys declared bankruptcy 4 times putting thousands out of work doing so but that is just fluffed off.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This simply doesn't bear thinking about.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Said it last summer - underestimating this populism thing is the best way to lose. If the Dems's don't take Trump seriously, he will be President.
Please explain 'populism' and how it can cause a total wassock to become president?
quote:Sounds like a lot of preachers and their flocks
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
If you shout stuff loud enough and long enough, with an edge of "if you don't believe this, you're stupid" coupled with a dose of "trust me, I'm a success", a lot of people who are looking for something to hold onto in perceived troubled times, they believe.
If you read what he believes, he's obviously got no clue of reality outside his bubble.
But, if all you do is listen, without thinking about what is being said, it all sounds inviting.
quote:I don't see myself voting for either one of them, no.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Of course policy matters, Barnabas. I prefer a candidate who most clearly advocates classical liberalism and right now it looks like Gary Johnson. However, the next president will come from one of the two main parties. There's still plenty of time between now and our primary to determine which party's primary I will vote in and for who.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't a candidate's policies factor into your thinking, Mere Nick? Is it all about your perception of their characters. Perceptions can be manipulated.quote:So I take it that Donald Trump effectively rules himself out from getting your vote by advocating such extreme policies? That's not exactly a classic liberalism proposal. Never mind "live and let live". That's worse than "live and let die".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And more fun from this episode of "Tantrum Of The Donald":
"Donald Trump said he'd kill terrorists' families at a rally. His crowd went wild." (Vox)
I can understand why, for many people, voting for Hillary would involve holding your nose. But if it's a choice between her and Trump, surely that's Hobson's choice for anyone who believes in classic liberalism? A shyster v an extreme demagogue?
quote:How could anyone make such a prediction? This would imply that voters are somewhere near rational, for one. If they were, Trump would already be eliminated.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
US friends are telling me that Sanders would crush Trump in an election, whereas Hillary would struggle. Is this really true?
quote:It's way too early to tell.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
US friends are telling me that Sanders would crush Trump in an election, whereas Hillary would struggle. Is this really true?
quote:I bet "no". I think Clinton would have the edge over Trump though there are circumstances in which she might lose. I think Sanders has a better chance against Trump than against any other candidate - anyone else would definitely beat Sanders, but there is a modest chance that Trump would self-destruct badly enough to let him in. But if Trump didn't completely self-destruct, he, too, would beat Sanders.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
US friends are telling me that Sanders would crush Trump in an election, whereas Hillary would struggle. Is this really true?
quote:I don't think it's at all true. But then I also think Sanders supporters tend to be more enthusiastic than practical. (And no that is not a buzz word for more liberal than I am.)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
US friends are telling me that Sanders would crush Trump in an election, whereas Hillary would struggle. Is this really true?
quote:Way back when Ross Perot ran for pres, someone in the media said that "he's eminently electable--until you realize what he's saying".
But, if all you do is listen, without thinking about what is being said, it all sounds inviting.
quote:I seem to recall that when John Kennedy was President he tried to turn down his salary. That is apparently not possible, so he donated 100% of it to charity.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Perot, who was wealthy, offered not to take a salary--until such time as he made the country turn a profit. (I think he had a tiered scheme, probably on one of his many charts.) Has Trump offered anything like that?
quote:The US treasury will happily accept a gift to reduce the public debt. That would seem to be an appropriate direction for this kind of gesture.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I seem to recall that when John Kennedy was President he tried to turn down his salary. That is apparently not possible, so he donated 100% of it to charity.
quote:That's like the sun accepting a glass of water to help cool it off.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The US treasury will happily accept a gift to reduce the public debt.
quote:Art. II, §1, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I seem to recall that when John Kennedy was President he tried to turn down his salary. That is apparently not possible, so he donated 100% of it to charity.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Perot, who was wealthy, offered not to take a salary--until such time as he made the country turn a profit. (I think he had a tiered scheme, probably on one of his many charts.) Has Trump offered anything like that?
quote:This clause was included so that Congress, which holds the sole power of appropriating money, would not have the ability to "lean" on the president by withholding (or threatening to withhold) his salary. In other words, Congress has the power to alter the salaries of future presidents, but whoever the current president happens to be has his salary locked in place.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
quote:Always said the sun is polite.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:That's like the sun accepting a glass of water to help cool it off.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The US treasury will happily accept a gift to reduce the public debt.
quote:Come a little closer with that glass. Just a liiitle closer …
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Always said the sun is polite.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
That's like the sun accepting a glass of water to help cool it off.
quote:The lying to family members stuff - isn't that Benghazi? I'm with John Stewart on Benghazi - it's a crock, and the Republicans failed to lay a glove on Hilary repeatedly. Just like that other super-expensive inquiry - Whitewater, was it called? The Republicans need to learn to stuff their muskets with something more substantial than dried dog poop. Honestly, they fire the things off, but they just end up smelling like shit.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Folks might find this from the extremely moderate Weekly Standard interesting.
While I never really got into golf like my dad and uncle, It's very hard to have much respect for a golf cheat. It isn't anything as horrible like lying to family members of dead folks like Hillary did, but it is still bad enough to get someone shit-listed. And then the other things, like trying to use eminent domain to take someone's house, etc., nah.
quote:As just an occasional observer of US political events, I noticed one parallel between Conservative and Republican political professionals-- they seem to focus on policies and events in a way which is connected with playability on television (the "gotcha" phenomenon) while only rarely directing their efforts on policy or administrative issues, which are usually of greater importance. I pointed this out to one acquaintance in the field and he simply said that complexity doesn't sell.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:The lying to family members stuff - isn't that Benghazi? I'm with John Stewart on Benghazi - it's a crock, and the Republicans failed to lay a glove on Hilary repeatedly. Just like that other super-expensive inquiry - Whitewater, was it called? The Republicans need to learn to stuff their muskets with something more substantial than dried dog poop. Honestly, they fire the things off, but they just end up smelling like shit.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Folks might find this from the extremely moderate Weekly Standard interesting.
While I never really got into golf like my dad and uncle, It's very hard to have much respect for a golf cheat. It isn't anything as horrible like lying to family members of dead folks like Hillary did, but it is still bad enough to get someone shit-listed. And then the other things, like trying to use eminent domain to take someone's house, etc., nah.
quote:Hence Trump. As little as the other candidates say, he says even less. Doesn't bother with the pretense of facts or reality, much simpler.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I pointed this out to one acquaintance in the field and he simply said that complexity doesn't sell.
quote:Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The lying to family members stuff - isn't that Benghazi? I'm with John Stewart on Benghazi - it's a crock, and the Republicans failed to lay a glove on Hilary repeatedly.
quote:They know this already.
Mere Nick: Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
quote:How many of them denounce old GW? Without him, their would likely not have been a Benghazi.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:They know this already.
Mere Nick: Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
quote:Do you have any more reason to think the "lying to family members stuff" isn't bullshit than you did the last time this came up on this same thread in October?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The lying to family members stuff - isn't that Benghazi? I'm with John Stewart on Benghazi - it's a crock, and the Republicans failed to lay a glove on Hilary repeatedly.
quote:Uh-huh, that's why Hilary's approval ratings rose throughout the Benghazi hearings. They were the best gift the GOP ever gave a candidate-- demonstrating clearly for all who bothered to watch it how empty and vindictive the whole thing was. Keep it up.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The lying to family members stuff - isn't that Benghazi? I'm with John Stewart on Benghazi - it's a crock, and the Republicans failed to lay a glove on Hilary repeatedly.
quote:Hillary lied to those family members and it is not hypocrisy to say so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:How many of them denounce old GW? Without him, their would likely not have been a Benghazi.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:They know this already.
Mere Nick: Go tell the family members she lied to that it's a crock.
Not that this excuses Clinton, if your accusation is accurate, but it does point to the hypocrisy people use when assigning blame.
quote:On the issue of lying to families of dead people, it takes an asshole to do it. The only issue regarding agendas is what was Hillary's when she did it?
Originally posted by simontoad:
On this issue of lying to families - way to play the emotive card when the facts don't suit your agenda.
quote:No, the only issue is motherfuckers fabricating something that didn't happen — something that has been proven over and over again that didn't happen — and using the grief of these families for their political gain. It's despicable.
Mere Nick: On the issue of lying to families of dead people, it takes an asshole to do it. The only issue regarding agendas is what was Hillary's when she did it?
quote:So three separate families of the dead are all fabricating motherfuckers?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, the only issue is motherfuckers fabricating something that didn't happen — something that has been proven over and over again that didn't happen — and using the grief of these families for their political gain. It's despicable.
Mere Nick: On the issue of lying to families of dead people, it takes an asshole to do it. The only issue regarding agendas is what was Hillary's when she did it?
quote:No, it wasn't directed at them. The families have nothing to do with these fabrications.
romanlion: So three separate families of the dead are all fabricating motherfuckers?
quote:Can you provide links to quotes from three families supporting this story?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So three separate families of the dead are all fabricating motherfuckers?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, the only issue is motherfuckers fabricating something that didn't happen — something that has been proven over and over again that didn't happen — and using the grief of these families for their political gain. It's despicable.
Mere Nick: On the issue of lying to families of dead people, it takes an asshole to do it. The only issue regarding agendas is what was Hillary's when she did it?
Wow...
quote:Thanks for the links, Doublethink.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/04/what-benghazi-family-members-say-hillary-clinton-said-about-th e-video/?tid=a_inl
Note also The Washington Post updated its factcheck in the light of a critique by Briebart.
quote:I'm not entirely sure, but I think the idea is that the former seems more random and unpredictable (particularly when sparked by the action of an obscure filmmaker), whereas the latter is an ever-present threat; the claim that Clinton persisted in falsely blaming the video makes it look like she was ducking responsibility.
I am somehwat confused as to what difference it makes how quickly it was confirmed that it was an anti-american mob, or an anti-american terrorist group that was responsible.
quote:But how close will it be? If Clinton beats Sanders by 10, the media narative is "game over." If he is only down by one or two, then wins New Hampshire, the story is that the presumptive winner is struggling.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Democratic one is easy. Sanders has chances of winning New Hampshire, not Iowa.
The Republican is a toss-up between Trump and Cruz, with Rubio coming third.
quote:I concur that the winning margin is significant here, but I think the true test will be in the Southern states.
Og, King of Bashan: But how close will it be? If Clinton beats Sanders by 10, the media narative is "game over." If he is only down by one or two, then wins New Hampshire, the story is that the presumptive winner is struggling.
quote:What is the untrue made up story about her?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Making up a story about her that has been proven untrue, but to continue repeating it because it might hurt her politically.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/04/what-benghazi-family-members-say-hillary-clinton-said-about-th e-video/?tid=a_inl
Note also The Washington Post updated its factcheck in the light of a critique by Briebart.
I am somehwat confused as to what difference it makes how quickly it was confirmed that it was an anti-american mob, or an anti-american terrorist group that was responsible.
quote:Well, I'm waiting here, very excited, for the results. No predictions. It's all too much of a dizzying whirligig.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
We're having so much fun rehashing this one more time that it has gone unnoticed that, holy cow, actual votes will be cast tomorrow!
Any predictions for Iowa on the eve of the caucus? And remember, this isn't a first past the post event, so let us know who you have in second and third, and if it is a squeaker or a landslide.
quote:Current polls are saying they are now a dead heat in Iowa. Which, while understanding that a primary is quite different than a general election, is significant, given that the main charge against Sanders has been that he is unelectable.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Democratic one is easy. Sanders has chances of winning New Hampshire, not Iowa.
quote:Isn't it that "understanding" which is important? People who vote in primaries tend to have more extreme politics than people who vote in general elections. The main charge against Bernie Sanders, I thought, has been that he would be unpopular with the 20% of voters in the middle of the political spectrum. I don't think those people are strongly represented in primaries, are they?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which, while understanding that a primary is quite different than a general election, is significant, given that the main charge against Sanders has been that he is unelectable.
quote:The Obama campaign saw significantly increased voter turnout in groups who haven't traditionally had a high turnout: ethnic minorities and young people. A black president is an obvious draw.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Surprisingly, Sander's campaign has much more of an Obama-like feel to it, even though Clinton would be the "history-making" candidate (the first woman president, as opposed to yet another old white guy).
quote:And Iowa has caucuses rather than a primary. The results are representative of those who show up rather than the party membership as a whole.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Current polls are saying they are now a dead heat in Iowa. Which, while understanding that a primary is quite different than a general election, is significant, given that the main charge against Sanders has been that he is unelectable.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Democratic one is easy. Sanders has chances of winning New Hampshire, not Iowa.
quote:So if Sanders wins, it's because of misogyny? That's a bit too simple for me.
Firenze: My feeling 10 years ago was that misogyny trumps racism, and that a man - any man - even a black man - would be preferred over a woman. So I'm wondering if a man - any man - even a wild-haired old man - will still be preferred over a woman.
quote:Understood that a caucus is quite different than a primary. But even in a primary, as in the general election, the results are only representative of those who show up.
Originally posted by Carex:
And Iowa has caucuses rather than a primary. The results are representative of those who show up rather than the party membership as a whole.
quote:I had a similar opinion back during the 2008 campaign; that misogyny was a more potent force in American politics than racism. The seven years (to date) of the Obama presidency have made me re-examine that assumption.
Originally posted by Firenze:
My feeling 10 years ago was that misogyny trumps racism, and that a man - any man - even a black man - would be preferred over a woman.
quote:Though she has improved since, charisma definitely was on the side of Obama.
Originally posted by Firenze:
My feeling 10 years ago was that misogyny trumps racism, and that a man - any man - even a black man - would be preferred over a woman. So I'm wondering if a man - any man - even a wild-haired old man - will still be preferred over a woman.
quote:OTOH, I'm getting tired of people saying or implying I should vote for Clinton because VAGINA.
Originally posted by Firenze:
My feeling 10 years ago was that misogyny trumps racism, and that a man - any man - even a black man - would be preferred over a woman. So I'm wondering if a man - any man - even a wild-haired old man - will still be preferred over a woman.
quote:Og, a real squeaker implies something completely different where I'm from, a bit like a Trump
I am going to predict a real squeaker on the Democratic side.
quote:I doubt that Trump's supporters would pay much attention to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- he's not only Black, but a Muslim.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar lays out a reasoned argument as to why it is ridiculous to vote for Trump. Unfortunately, reason is the last criteria Trump's supporters use.
quote:I shall have to schedule an emergency confession with my priest because the world is ending and I don't want to face the end of the world unshriven. I agree with saysay about something.
Originally posted by saysay:
OTOH, I'm getting tired of people saying or implying I should vote for Clinton because VAGINA.
quote:Trump just spoke, and his spin was: 1. "they" told him when the campaign was starting out that he wouldn't finish in the top 10, and he proved "them" wrong; 2. he's way ahead in New Hampshire. So he's still trying to portray himself as a winner, but his tone was decent.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was 50% right on the GOP side. Cruz over Trump was a surprise, but a strong showing from Rubio, who came damn close to beating Trump. I'm just waiting to see how Trump spins this.
quote:Agreed. In fact, one of the truly dangerous things about Trump's candidacy is how his loud version of crazy misogynist zenophobia drowned out Cruz' only slightly less crazy misogynist zenophobia, making him look "sane" by comparison.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As for Cruz vs Trump, Cruz is certainly less loud, but I don't think his opinions are any prettier.
quote:America. This is what passes for progressive in America.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Clinton is speaking now. "I'm a progressive who gets things done," she says. WTF? On what planet is Hillary Clinton a progressive?
quote:You can! I'll just pack up a few candidates, and send them down there for you to practice on. Now, which ones, which ones...
Originally posted by simontoad:
What a magnificent festival of democracy! I wish we did caucusing here.
quote:Did something similar not happen in your election in 2000, with Al Gore getting more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but Bush won?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Saw one prediction that Clinton could win the % vote, but Sanders could end up with more delegates (21 to 19). That would be interesting!
quote:No, what happened in the US election in 2000 was that Al Gore got more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but a tribunal illegally ceded the Florida result — and thereby the election — to Bush.
David Goode: Did something similar not happen in your election in 2000, with Al Gore getting more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but Bush won?
quote:Ah, right. Thanks. I recall at the time there was something fishy about it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, what happened in the US election in 2000 was that Al Gore got more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but a tribunal illegally ceded the Florida result — and thereby the election — to Bush.
David Goode: Did something similar not happen in your election in 2000, with Al Gore getting more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but Bush won?
quote:There was a lot fishy about it. Remember who the Governor of Florida was at the time?
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:Ah, right. Thanks. I recall at the time there was something fishy about it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, what happened in the US election in 2000 was that Al Gore got more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but a tribunal illegally ceded the Florida result — and thereby the election — to Bush.
David Goode: Did something similar not happen in your election in 2000, with Al Gore getting more than half a million more people voting for him than George W Bush, but Bush won?
quote:Can a statistically significant measure of the Republican breakdown by race even be made? According to CNN the voters in the Iowa Republican caucuses were 97% white. (The state of Iowa as a whole is 89% non-Hispanic white according to the 2010 census, so this isn't that far out from the general population.)
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Those 538 exit polls are fascinating.
On the Democrat side, it's amazing how strong a determinant age of voter was in determining the Clinton/Sanders breakdown, hugely outweighing anything else.
On the Republican side, the most interesting thing was how little age and race mattered - the three front runners were fairly evenly matched across the board.
quote:The internet is having a ball with this, suggesting alternative ways of breaking the tie. A staring contest perhaps?
beatmenace: Hillary knew that stock of double-headed coins would come in useful one day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/iowa-caucus-hillary-clinton-wins-six-delegates-by-coin-toss-a68 48126.html
quote:Indeed - you are quite right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Can a statistically significant measure of the Republican breakdown by race even be made? According to CNN the voters in the Iowa Republican caucuses were 97% white. (The state of Iowa as a whole is 89% non-Hispanic white according to the 2010 census, so this isn't that far out from the general population.)
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Those 538 exit polls are fascinating.
On the Democrat side, it's amazing how strong a determinant age of voter was in determining the Clinton/Sanders breakdown, hugely outweighing anything else.
On the Republican side, the most interesting thing was how little age and race mattered - the three front runners were fairly evenly matched across the board.
quote:That was hilarious!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is the best explanation I've seen of the Iowa caucuses, not just "for British people," but for confused Americans and anyone else befuddled by this process.
quote:Why would anyone want a voting system like that?!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is the best explanation I've seen of the Iowa caucuses, not just "for British people," but for confused Americans and anyone else befuddled by this process.
quote:Small, early states love it because it makes them more influential.
David Goode: Why would anyone want a voting system like that?!
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is the best explanation I've seen of the Iowa caucuses, not just "for British people," but for confused Americans and anyone else befuddled by this process.
quote:That's actually rather helpful.
Not: This lego one is even better!
(scroll halfway down page)
quote:Love it, especially this bit:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is the best explanation I've seen of the Iowa caucuses, not just "for British people," but for confused Americans and anyone else befuddled by this process.
quote:
Chris Christie – New Jersey governor, troubled by a scandal over the time he shut down a bridge, which frankly pales in comparison to Ted Cruz’s shutting-shit-down achievements
quote:And of course neither the caucuses nor the primaries are "elections" in the strict sense. They are processes for nominating party candidates.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:Small, early states love it because it makes them more influential.
David Goode: Why would anyone want a voting system like that?!
I hope you're not assuming most of us do want it (or the Electoral College). But that's very different than agreeing on how to change it.
quote:That only explains how the Democrats do it. It doesn't explain how the Republicans do it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's actually rather helpful.
Not: This lego one is even better!
(scroll halfway down page)
quote:It looks odd to most Americans, too. I'm glad we don't do that in Arizona. (Finally! Something good about Arizona politics!)
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That only explains how the Democrats do it. It doesn't explain how the Republicans do it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's actually rather helpful.
Not: This lego one is even better!
(scroll halfway down page)
Incidentally, to a foreigner, that process looks really odd. It also seems a denial of the whole idea that ballots are secret.
Perhaps our ways of doing these things do too from outside.
quote:Actually, I do think it has some value. A lot of people would like to eliminate it, but I think it did have an advantage in Bush vs. Gore. The general election per se didn't settle the matter from a legal point of view, the Electoral College did, and there was no dispute about who the Electoral College elected.
Nick Tamen: Meanwhile, I guess I'll gear up for yet another presidential election where I'm one of the relative few defending the value of the Electoral College, at least in principle.
quote:Baloney. The 5-4 Supreme Court decision to stop the Florida recount was and still is controversial from a constitutional perspective:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As it was, the Electoral College clearly re-elected Bush as President and no one disputed that, from a constitutional perspective, Bush really was elected rather than Gore.
quote:
In Bush v. Gore, on the contrary, the Court actively prevented the completion of a halted state recount, never having ruled on the merits either of the challenge or the election and never having adjudicated the validity of Bush's certification or Gore's request for a recount. Instead, the Court selected the next President of the United States in the absence of a completed election—the ultimate political act. A meaningful remand in Bush v. Gore, or completing the election under the Court's own supervision, would have preserved the Constitution from this assault.
--Weinberg, Louise, in When Courts Decide Elections: The Constitutionality of Bush v. Gore, 82 Boston University Law Review 609 (2002), p. 33. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#cite_note-46)
quote:Sounds a bit like, "We cheated fair and square".
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It may very well not have been the end result that reflected the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote itself was clear and legal.
Even if the process of selecting electors was constitutionally questionable, there was still no doubt about who they voted for.
quote:And that's a good thing why?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Even if the process of selecting electors was constitutionally questionable, there was still no doubt about who they voted for.
quote:Thumb-wrestling is the only fair way.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The internet is having a ball with this, suggesting alternative ways of breaking the tie. A staring contest perhaps?
beatmenace: Hillary knew that stock of double-headed coins would come in useful one day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/iowa-caucus-hillary-clinton-wins-six-delegates-by-coin-toss-a68 48126.html
quote:As I said, it may not be a great system, and I'm not necessarily advocating for keeping it. I'm just pointing out that as a small counter-weight to any problems that are weighing it down, it seems to me that it has at least one small advantage by allowing for a result that is less vulnerable to legal challenges.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And that's a good thing why?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Even if the process of selecting electors was constitutionally questionable, there was still no doubt about who they voted for.
quote:The electoral college thread from four years ago, for those interested in the topic. The basic issues involved in the institution haven't changed much since then.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Meanwhile, I guess I'll gear up for yet another presidential election where I'm one of the relative few defending the value of the Electoral College, at least in principle.
quote:I'd much rather have an accurate count of the popular vote, which would be possible if we didn't have a such silly piecemeal system for running national elections.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I'm just pointing out that as a small counter-weight to any problems that are weighing it down, it seems to me that it has at least one small advantage by allowing for a result that is less vulnerable to legal challenges.
quote:During Bush Gore when it looked really close, ,I was hoping it would come down to a close vote in New Mexico. The way they decide a tie election is the two candidates meet and draw for high card from a deck of cards. That would have been a great way to decide the whole thing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Thumb-wrestling is the only fair way.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The internet is having a ball with this, suggesting alternative ways of breaking the tie. A staring contest perhaps?
beatmenace: Hillary knew that stock of double-headed coins would come in useful one day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/iowa-caucus-hillary-clinton-wins-six-delegates-by-coin-toss-a68 48126.html
quote:Foul tactics?!? From the party of swift boaters, birthers, smear campaigns targeted against adopted children???
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The Trump and Carson campaigns are now accusing the Cruz campaign of foul tactics in Iowa.
quote:It gets worse!! Trump is accusing Cruz of misrepresenting Trump's position on certain issues! That has surely never before happened in the history of politics! You just can't trust those Canadians!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Foul tactics?!? From the party of swift boaters, birthers, smear campaigns targeted against adopted children???
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The Trump and Carson campaigns are now accusing the Cruz campaign of foul tactics in Iowa.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
quote:Well, that's just ... odd.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
At some point on Monday evening, a rumor emerged that Carson was flying home, and people wondered if he intended to suspend his campaign. An hour later, we were informed that Carson was, in fact, just flying home to get some clean laundry.
quote:God just wanted to laugh at them.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I seem to remember that God told both these gentlemen (and also Mike Huckabee) to run. Guess that didn't include actually winning, eh?
quote:This is as ugly as people calling people sexist if they dare criticize Hillary.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well one thing is clear...
If old, white, and entrenched is what you are looking for, the dims are your party.
The GOP top 4 is comprised of two Hispanics, a black guy, and white guy.
Too bad they're all racists...
quote:I googled him, the wiki page "santorum neologism" is still on the first page of search results.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Rand Paul and Rick Santorum are out. I hardly remembered that Santorum was in at any point.
(And before someone rehashes the same old Santorum joke, I heard that he was actually ending debate closing statements by urging people to google him, suggesting that he finally hired someone to fix that...)
quote:I don't know how big YOUR suitcase is...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Well, that's just ... odd.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
At some point on Monday evening, a rumor emerged that Carson was flying home, and people wondered if he intended to suspend his campaign. An hour later, we were informed that Carson was, in fact, just flying home to get some clean laundry.
quote:RL has been very obsessed with the racial profiles of the current leading presidential contenders of the party that twice elected Barack Obama president. It is the "one thing" that is clear to him. Though for someone so fixated on this aspect of the presidential race (in both senses of the term) he seems remarkably incurious about other aspects of his obsession.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is as ugly as people calling people sexist if they dare criticize Hillary.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well one thing is clear...
If old, white, and entrenched is what you are looking for, the dims are your party.
The GOP top 4 is comprised of two Hispanics, a black guy, and white guy.
Too bad they're all racists...
quote:Democrats should be upset about the racial make-up of our current presidential contenders. We can talk about judging the content of character all we want, but on election day, whose characters are you comparing? Usually a couple of white people, most likely white men. It's not that there aren't other qualified minorities or females out there. It's that you need a lot of things to break your way in order to even consider running for office, and those things (connections, internships and first jobs, opportunities to get graduate education, etc.) tend to break easier for white men. The fact that the party that nominated Obama twice doesn't have a minority candidate tells us that one election didn't fix the systematic problem.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:RL has been very obsessed with the racial profiles of the current leading presidential contenders of the party that twice elected Barack Obama president. It is the "one thing" that is clear to him. Though for someone so fixated on this aspect of the presidential race (in both senses of the term) he seems remarkably incurious about other aspects of his obsession.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is as ugly as people calling people sexist if they dare criticize Hillary.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well one thing is clear...
If old, white, and entrenched is what you are looking for, the dims are your party.
The GOP top 4 is comprised of two Hispanics, a black guy, and white guy.
Too bad they're all racists...
quote:Isn't a rather more important question 'which candidate looks potentially like the more competent supreme leader and head of state'?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
.... I would suggest that Democrats who are concerned about racial equality and racial justice need to consider in any election which candidate will do more to solve the opportunity gap. And I would go as far as to say that, yes, race and gender will play a part in that consideration- all other things being equal, the female or minority candidate is going to know what broke their way to get into office, and will probably be more likely to build connections and offer internships and jobs to other women or minorities. It doesn't have to be the only thing you consider, but you should consider it. ....
quote:That's a bit too simple. I'm sure that there are dozens of people somewhere in the Democratic party that are just as bright as Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley, that have good ideas … It is also about how much effort does the party put into signalling good people of different genders and backgrounds, how much space does it give them to move up …?
Enoch: Isn't a rather more important question 'which candidate looks potentially like the more competent supreme leader and head of state'?
quote:He thinks about as much as Godin's statue.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I just listened to NPR's "Here and Now". Two women explained why they support Trump.
IMHO, the interviewer did a good job--wasn't rude, and politely asked sensible questions. I'm not a Trump supporter, and I found some of the responses mind-blowing. ("He's a great thinker"???)
quote:I've yet to hear a coherent reason from Trump supporters.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I just listened to NPR's "Here and Now". Two women explained why they support Trump.
IMHO, the interviewer did a good job--wasn't rude, and politely asked sensible questions. I'm not a Trump supporter, and I found some of the responses mind-blowing. ("He's a great thinker"???)
quote:Coherency is not to be trusted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I've yet to hear a coherent reason from Trump supporters.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I just listened to NPR's "Here and Now". Two women explained why they support Trump.
IMHO, the interviewer did a good job--wasn't rude, and politely asked sensible questions. I'm not a Trump supporter, and I found some of the responses mind-blowing. ("He's a great thinker"???)
The basic "reasoning" seems to be that he is not establishment. ...
quote:Things are getting better, at least on the Democratic side. If you look at the racial breakdown of the Democratic House members, the numbers aren't too far off the national average (I think the biggest discrepancy is the male:female ratio amongst white Dems - there aren't enough white women.)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The fact that the party that nominated Obama twice doesn't have a minority candidate tells us that one election didn't fix the systematic problem.
quote:Snoop started from nothing in a bad part of Long Beach and used his talents to make millions of dollars and escape the ghetto.
Originally posted by simontoad:
or snoop dog?
quote:I could never live with myself if I did that and Trumpster won.
Originally posted by The Riv:
Still feel as if a vigorous hike on election day would be a better use of time than queuing to vote.
quote:
lilBuddha: absolute left (anarchy) [...] absolute right (absolute dictatorship)
quote:I don't think America is further left of where it was when it elected Jimmy Carter 40 years ago.
Originally posted by The Riv:
To me, America is trending to the Left: not far or quickly enough for Liberals, too far and too quickly enough for Conservatives. Other than that, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
quote:Absolute freedom and absolute control. Does this work better for you?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: absolute left (anarchy) [...] absolute right (absolute dictatorship)
quote:'fraid not.
lilBuddha: Absolute freedom and absolute control. Does this work better for you?
quote:The conservative mainstream politicians are getting more conservative. The Democratic mainstream politicians are increasingly serving business which tends to the more conservative end of the spectrum in practical effect.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't think America is further left of where it was when it elected Jimmy Carter 40 years ago.
Originally posted by The Riv:
To me, America is trending to the Left: not far or quickly enough for Liberals, too far and too quickly enough for Conservatives. Other than that, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
The increasing polarization is a much bigger effect than a change in the political centre of mass.
quote:Not exactly. it is about control. The right wants to control everyone, the left wants everyone in control. In theory, anyway. In practice it is messy and overlapping. Anarchy is impractical, especially in anything larger than small, hunter-gather groups. So one needs a regulated form of egalitarianism, and this involves some form of government.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:'fraid not.
lilBuddha: Absolute freedom and absolute control. Does this work better for you?
It is funny; this goes exactly opposite to the people on the Ship and elsewhere who say that the left is about bringing the government into everything.
quote:Snoop actually has an active brain cell or five rolling around in his head, too. He's a pretty smart guy. Not ready for president, but if he ran for Senate, ( say) I'd vote for him.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Snoop started from nothing in a bad part of Long Beach and used his talents to make millions of dollars and escape the ghetto.
Originally posted by simontoad:
or snoop dog?
Trump inherited a real estate empire and used his talents to turn that into . . . a slightly less valuable real estate empire.
I fail to see the similarity.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Snoop started from nothing in a bad part of Long Beach and used his talents to make millions of dollars and escape the ghetto.
Originally posted by simontoad:
or snoop dog?
Trump inherited a real estate empire and used his talents to turn that into . . . a slightly less valuable real estate empire.
I fail to see the similarity.
I was riffing off not being establishment...
quote:In practice, it seems that the right wants to control everyone, and the left wants to control everyone differently.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In practice it is messy and overlapping.
quote:Well, seeing as Hillary has no progressive policy goals, her chance of bringing any to fruition is nil. Bernie is a progressive, but may have a hard time getting Congress to play ball. Although if he manages to ride a progressive insurgency to power, that may not be so cut-and-dried. But if you want progressive policy goals, I think you're more likely to get them with a progressive president than a blue dog, all things considered.
Originally posted by stonespring:
On the whole Bernie vs. Hillary question, I am not sure who would better as president for the success of progressive policy goals in the medium or long term.
quote:That gets a
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I would say Trump is the ultimate establishment candidate. Yes, he doesn't take money from entrenched special-interest groups because he IS an entrenched special-interest group. All he has done is cut out the middle man and ensure that he is accountable to no one. ...
quote:Agree, agree, agree. I would only add that I am not optimistic about Clinton's chances of working with a Republican Congress given the decades-long antagonism she's gotten from the right. The word went out early on to not work with Obama after he was elected, and they hadn't hated him nearly as long as they've hated Clinton.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Well, seeing as Hillary has no progressive policy goals, her chance of bringing any to fruition is nil. Bernie is a progressive, but may have a hard time getting Congress to play ball. Although if he manages to ride a progressive insurgency to power, that may not be so cut-and-dried. But if you want progressive policy goals, I think you're more likely to get them with a progressive president than a blue dog, all things considered.
Originally posted by stonespring:
On the whole Bernie vs. Hillary question, I am not sure who would better as president for the success of progressive policy goals in the medium or long term.
quote:No clue, but many claim you will lose votes in Nevada for saying "Nevada" wrong. (It's NevADa, not NevAHda. Much like Colorado is ColorADo, not ColorAHdo. The A comes from the nose, not the back of the throat. The incorrect pronunciation may sound closer to the original Spanish name, but in the ears of a Westerner, it makes you sound like an out of touch East coaster.)
Originally posted by simontoad:
Further to the robot Marco Rubio, do some people get really upset when you call Derry, New Hampshire Londonderry, New Hampshire?
quote:A STYX reboot of Mr. Roboto is the high water mark of this election's interest and enjoyment -- well played!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Finally! Campaign 2016 has now made up for its longstanding lack of cardboard robots.
"Domo arigato, Marco Roboto!"
quote:Umm... because when the rules were drawn up, your state was still part of the Spanish Empire?
Why on earth do we give this important decision to this tiny, completely non-representative state?
quote:Brazil does this of course.
lilBuddha: Everyone, in every state, should vote at the same time. In the prelims and in the finals. No results should be released until all the votes are cast and exit polls should not be taken.
quote:Umm ... no. The primary system emerged in the early 20th century. The first primary was held in Oregon in 1910.
Originally posted by Jane R:
RuthW:quote:Umm... because when the rules were drawn up, your state was still part of the Spanish Empire?
Why on earth do we give this important decision to this tiny, completely non-representative state?
quote:Well, of course, usually we know the results the same evening-- sometimes within minutes of the polls being closed. The problem in 2000 was how close the election was, which led to both sides asking for recounts. The, of course, SCOTUS got involved and the whole thing went south badly. Does Brazil have some sort of system for close elections that spells out better what happens re recounts to avoid the debacle we had? Because otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I remember the 2000 elections, when it took the US weeks to have a result. Brazil had elections around the same time, and they had a result the same evening. They were rather proud of that little difference.
quote:Because New Hampshire law, which sets the second Tuesday in March as the default date for the New Hampshire presidential primary, also requires that the primary occur at least 7 days before any other state's primary. So whatever any other state does, New Hampshire will always adjust its primary date to be first. So far, the DNC and the RNC have shown only limited interest in challenging that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What really gets me is the total number of people who voted at all is considerably smaller than the population of my city. Why on earth do we give this important decision to this tiny, completely non-representative state?
quote:Actually they've both showed an interest in maintaining the status quo. If you recall, there was a move during the 2008 election by several other states to move their primaries/caucuses (cauci?) forward in the calendar. Because of this Iowa caucused on January 3 of that year and New Hampshire primaried January 8. Fearing a stampede both parties (but particularly the Democrats) started handing out penalties to states involved in this "time rush". (Michigan and Florida both lost delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention over this.) One of the consequences of the way election 2008 played out was that the Democrats were helped (according to the conventional wisdom) by their long primary process keeping the focus on the Obama/Clinton contest, while the Republican campaign was starved of media attention and got rusty at campaigning (again according to the conventional wisdom) after having effectively picked John McCain sometime in early February 2008.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Because New Hampshire law, which sets the second Tuesday in March as the default date for the New Hampshire presidential primary, also requires that the primary occur at least 7 days before any other state's primary. So whatever any other state does, New Hampshire will always adjust its primary date to be first. So far, the DNC and the RNC have shown only limited interest in challenging that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What really gets me is the total number of people who voted at all is considerably smaller than the population of my city. Why on earth do we give this important decision to this tiny, completely non-representative state?
quote:That campaign was, IMO, an anomaly. ISTM, the early states unduly effect turnout in the later states.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because Campaign 2008 so effectively illustrated the way a state with later primaries/caucuses can influence a close presidential primary, most states resumed a later, more traditional schedule in 2012 and continued to do so in 2016.
quote:It's hard to derive any trends from U.S. Presidential elections since they suffer from what statisticians refer to as "small n". Still, state political parties try to derive trends from something that happens once every four years (twice if you want to count the Democratic and Republican primaries as separate events) and the trend they derived from 2008 was that everyone rushing towards January was a mug's game. The thinking goes that in a close primary it's better to go later and in a primary that's not close it doesn't matter when you go. You can argue that the cascade effect on later primaries is a bigger factor. In the 2016 cycle most states seem to be trying to balance both of these theories and aiming for the middle of the primary calendar. They may be wrong (small n, remember?) but that's where their thinking seems to be.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That campaign was, IMO, an anomaly. ISTM, the early states unduly effect turnout in the later states.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because Campaign 2008 so effectively illustrated the way a state with later primaries/caucuses can influence a close presidential primary, most states resumed a later, more traditional schedule in 2012 and continued to do so in 2016.
quote:It doesn't need to. Even if it is close, it gives the results and that is that.
cliffdweller: Does Brazil have some sort of system for close elections that spells out better what happens re recounts to avoid the debacle we had?
quote:I do recall that. I was thinking that sometime prior to 2008, the DNC and the RNC stuck their toes in the water with regard to changing the status quo, and then pretty quickly drew their toes back, but maybe I'm dreaming that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Actually they've both showed an interest in maintaining the status quo. If you recall, there was a move during the 2008 election by several other states to move their primaries/caucuses (cauci?) forward in the calendar. . . .
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So far, the DNC and the RNC have shown only limited interest in challenging that.
quote:Here's something I've been wondering about...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Actually they've both showed an interest in maintaining the status quo. If you recall, there was a move during the 2008 election by several other states to move their primaries/caucuses (cauci?) forward in the calendar. Because of this Iowa caucused on January 3 of that year and New Hampshire primaried January 8. Fearing a stampede both parties (but particularly the Democrats) started handing out penalties to states involved in this "time rush". (Michigan and Florida both lost delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention over this.) One of the consequences of the way election 2008 played out was that the Democrats were helped (according to the conventional wisdom) by their long primary process keeping the focus on the Obama/Clinton contest, while the Republican campaign was starved of media attention and got rusty at campaigning (again according to the conventional wisdom) after having effectively picked John McCain sometime in early February 2008.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Because New Hampshire law, which sets the second Tuesday in March as the default date for the New Hampshire presidential primary, also requires that the primary occur at least 7 days before any other state's primary. So whatever any other state does, New Hampshire will always adjust its primary date to be first. So far, the DNC and the RNC have shown only limited interest in challenging that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What really gets me is the total number of people who voted at all is considerably smaller than the population of my city. Why on earth do we give this important decision to this tiny, completely non-representative state?
Because Campaign 2008 so effectively illustrated the way a state with later primaries/caucuses can influence a close presidential primary, most states resumed a later, more traditional schedule in 2012 and continued to do so in 2016.
quote:Well, again, that's precisely what we do. The problem in 2000 is that the results wereso incredibly close as to be in dispute by both sides. Unless you have some magical way to prevent that from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:It doesn't need to. Even if it is close, it gives the results and that is that.
cliffdweller: Does Brazil have some sort of system for close elections that spells out better what happens re recounts to avoid the debacle we had?
quote:There is such a magical way. It is called electronic voting.
cliffdweller: Unless you have some magical way to prevent that from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
quote:It's more like the parties have a choice: rely on the states to provide the mechanics and support of primaries, or do it themselves. If they do it themselves, then they pay for it themselves. So they go along with structures the states put in place as the cost of letting the states run—and pay for—the primaries.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Here's something I've been wondering about...
How is it that states can regulate the candidate-selection process of political parties, which as far as I know, are private organizations?
Let's say the Democrats one year announce "We're gonna hold our first primary in Utah, not New Hampshire." Would they be in violation of New Hampshire law by doing so?
And if a third party emerges, are they also obligated to follow state laws in regards to when to hold their primaries? Or do these laws specify that they're only talking about the Democratic and the Republican parties?
Or is it just that the law says "Our state's primary will be held on such and such a date", and the two main parties just go along with it to keep everyone happy?
quote:It can happen with electronic voting, too. I've seen it. No special magic there.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:There is such a magical way. It is called electronic voting.
cliffdweller: Unless you have some magical way to prevent that from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
quote:Exactly. The problem was not in the waiting. Really, the problem was in the not waiting-- in rushing the results and leading the question forever in dispute, with all the anguished "what ifs" connected to how things turned out.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Not only that it was close, but if I remember correctly, that it was unclear whether some ballots represented validly cast votes or not. Given the closeness, the determination of the validity was crucial to the result.
Taking some time for that determination seems appropriate to me.
quote:Still, there haven't really been cases of fraud in Brazil.
Nick Tamen: It can happen with electronic voting, too. I've seen it. No special magic there.
quote:There's also the additional complicating factor that primaries and caucuses are organized by state-level parties, not the national party apparatus, and these organizations often have slightly different priorities.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:It's more like the parties have a choice: rely on the states to provide the mechanics and support of primaries, or do it themselves. If they do it themselves, then they pay for it themselves. So they go along with structures the states put in place as the cost of letting the states run—and pay for—the primaries.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Here's something I've been wondering about...
How is it that states can regulate the candidate-selection process of political parties, which as far as I know, are private organizations?
Let's say the Democrats one year announce "We're gonna hold our first primary in Utah, not New Hampshire." Would they be in violation of New Hampshire law by doing so?
And if a third party emerges, are they also obligated to follow state laws in regards to when to hold their primaries? Or do these laws specify that they're only talking about the Democratic and the Republican parties?
Or is it just that the law says "Our state's primary will be held on such and such a date", and the two main parties just go along with it to keep everyone happy?
quote:I didn't say anything about fraud. Nor, for that matter, about registering voters. I have seen electronic systems fail to work properly to an extent that called the results into legitimate question.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Still, there haven't really been cases of fraud in Brazil.
Nick Tamen: It can happen with electronic voting, too. I've seen it. No special magic there.
quote:Yes! Thanks.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's also the additional complicating factor that primaries and caucuses are organized by state-level parties, not the national party apparatus, and these organizations often have slightly different priorities.
quote:Of course the Brazilian system isn't perfect. I didn't say that; no system is. But the discussion was about whether the Brazilian system of casting and tallying votes is better than that in the US. I'd say that it is.
Nick Tamen: Any system can fail, no matter how good it is.
quote:No, what I was responding to was your response to cliffdweller. She asked if Brazil has some "magical way" to ensure that an election would not be so close as to be questioned by both sides. You said, yes, that the "magical way" is electronic voting. I was pointing out that I have seen failure in electronic voting resulting a result questioned by both sides, so electronic voting is not a "magical way" to avoid such a result.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Of course the Brazilian system isn't perfect. I didn't say that; no system is. But the discussion was about whether the Brazilian system of casting and tallying votes is better than that in the US. I'd say that it is.
Nick Tamen: Any system can fail, no matter how good it is.
quote:Brazil's system can't prevent the elections from being close, of course. But what it is magically good at is preventing disputes that might arise from this closeness.
Nick Tamen: No, what I was responding to was your response to cliffdweller. She asked if Brazil has some "magical way" to ensure that an election would not be so close as to be questioned by both sides.
quote:At a certain level, the needs are similar. Two countries of a comparable size need to decide on who will govern them. The political systems are similar too: the Brazilian political system is much closer to that of the US than to most European countries. The reason for that is simple: when the country became a Republic in 1888, they largely took the US' constitution as inspiration.
Nick Tamen: As for whose system is "better," I think that's likely a somewhat fruitless comparison. Needs and priorities in different places are different. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
quote:Look, I agree with all the oddities mentioned above. I even cited some of them in my post. And yes, some of those things were complicating factors in the 2000 election. But my point and Nick's was the specifics of having to do a recount in a close election. Despite your protestations to the contrary, I doubt if Brazil's electronic voting is any more sophisticated than anyone else's to avoid the need for a recount in a desperately close election as we had in 2000. And, as noted above, it's worth the delay to get it right when so much is on the line. The pity from my pov is not that it took so long, but rather than the recount was cut short.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Still, there haven't really been cases of fraud in Brazil.
Nick Tamen: It can happen with electronic voting, too. I've seen it. No special magic there.
Look at it from a Brazilian's point of view. They don't have this weird and sometimes rather exclusive system of registering voters. They don't have primaries with all these questions about caucuses and which state votes first. They don't have these strange things that can make a vote invalid and the long discussions afterwards about this. They don't have to wait for votes coming in by letter afterwards.
Especially after 2000, a Brazilian would say — not without glee, I admit — "the US is supposedly more 'developed' than us, but we are doing this better."
And they wouldn't be entirely wrong.
quote:But it is. I'll have to look it up, but I think in some Brazilian legislatures the vote has been similarly close to what has happened in Florida in 2000. So what do they do? They look at the numbers the voting machines give. They see which one is the highest, even if the difference is very small. And whoever got that highest vote won. End of.
cliffdweller: Despite your protestations to the contrary, I doubt if Brazil's electronic voting is any more sophisticated than anyone else's to avoid the need for a recount in a desperately close election as we had in 2000.
quote:That's good that you haven't. But I can assure you that electronic voting systems are not a magical way to keep such disputes from happening. You haven't seen them because they are mercifully rare—which is why the 2000 presidential election here was the anomaly, not the norm.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Brazil's system can't prevent the elections from being close, of course. But what it is magically good at is preventing disputes that might arise from this closeness.
Brazil's last elections in some legislatures were very close. But I haven't seen disputes of this kind.
quote:We have those here too, you know. And the instance I mentioned was one where it was discovered that the electronic voting machines had failed to record thousands of votes—enough to potentially change the results of an election. And since there were no paper ballots to go back and look at, it was A Big Mess.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
They look at the numbers the voting machines give. They see which one is the highest, even if the difference is very small. And whoever got that highest vote won. End of.
quote:Brazilians will be glad to know that even their machines are better than those in the US. (And I think they are.)
Nick Tamen: And the instance I mentioned was one where it was discovered that the electronic voting machines had failed to record thousands of votes—enough to potentially change the results of an election.
quote:We have close or tied municipal elections here with some frequency. The tied ones are decided by the flip of a coin.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(LOL, I just looked it up. There is a case of a municipality in the state of São Paulo, where the difference between the winner and the runner-op was exactly one vote. No-one asked for a recount. That's almost unthinkable; people trust the result of the tally. The reaction of the winner? "It's a good thing that I didn't argue with my wife today, because that would have tipped the balance.")
quote:He'd make a lot of noise, no doubt. But I don't think Brazilian law gives him the possibility of a lengthy recount.
Nick Tamen: But I think anyone would agree that the stakes are different when it's a close presidential election rather than a close municipal election. I doubt the losing candidate would just shrug and walk away.
quote:Then if that's the case, one could argue that Brazilian law fails to adequately protect the integrity of the vote by favoring speedy resolution over accuracy and establishing what vote actually was.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But I don't think Brazilian law gives him the possibility of a lengthy recount.
quote:But the Brazilian system is accurate.
Nick Tamen: Then if that's the case, one could argue that Brazilian law fails to adequately protect the integrity of the vote by favoring speedy resolution over accuracy and establishing what vote actually was.
quote:I disagree. If indeed the Brazilian system is accurate and discards with the need for recounts, I would say that it is better.
Nick Tamen: And of course, one could certainly argue the opposite. But that's what I'm talking about, though, with the problems with saying one system is "better" than another. Different systems establish different priorities.
quote:But the reason we don't know is that the recount was stopped-- iow, it favored speedy resolution over accuracy.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sorry for continuing to beat this hammer, but looking at Florida 2000, the argument "we may be slower but that's because we prioritise accuracy" isn't very strong. After 15 years, do we accurately *know* how many people voted for Bush and how many voted for Gore?
quote:Okay, I can see the argument "we should have taken more time to recount the Florida results". Given the oddities of the system, that would have been the best solution. At least, taking more time might have helped to take some of the ambiguities away.
cliffdweller: Again, there is so much to fault in the US electoral system-- or even with the 2000 election-- but the fact that the result wasn't "speedy" wasn't one of them.
quote:What gives you such confidence that this is so?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But the Brazilian system is accurate.
Nick Tamen: Then if that's the case, one could argue that Brazilian law fails to adequately protect the integrity of the vote by favoring speedy resolution over accuracy and establishing what vote actually was.
quote:Because they perform checks afterwards.
Dave W.: What gives you such confidence that this is so?
quote:It is good that people continue to cast a critical eye on Brazil's voting system, of course. There are a number of groups and websites looking at potential fraud, and obviously they formulate their conclusions in a slightly harsh way as if the fraud is already happening. It is a good thing that these groups exist, and they should continue doing exactly that. What's important is that the Brazilian system takes these views into account when they continually recheck their systems. But AFAICS, after rechecks, no actual cases of voting machine fraud have happened.
Golden Key: I did a search on "Brazil election tampering", and found this, from 2014:
Fraud possible in Brazil's e-voting system: Vulnerabilities found in the pioneering electronic voting system could lead to tampering in the country's upcoming general elections.
quote:Nope. I've got no problem with you thinking that the Brazilian system is better. Really, none. I'll even entertain (seriously) the possibility that you may be right.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
PS I also find it interesting that whenever I say "I think the Brazilian system is better than the US one", people seem to hear "I think the Brazilian system is perfect".
quote:I don't have a "that could never happen here" attitude. I do think that electronic voting can help prevent some problems. I mean, you just need to look at these images of people trying to decide whether a chad was still fixed at one corner or not … to decide "there must be a better way".
Nick Tamen: What I, at least, am reacting to is the "that could never happen here" attitude generally, and the idea that electronic voting is a magical way to avoid close, contested elections specifically.
quote:Thanks for clarifying that, since that's not the message I was picking up from your posts, particularly this one:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't have a "that could never happen here" attitude.
Nick Tamen: What I, at least, am reacting to is the "that could never happen here" attitude generally, and the idea that electronic voting is a magical way to avoid close, contested elections specifically.
quote:
quote:There is such a magical way. It is called electronic voting.
cliffdweller: Unless you have some magical way to prevent [close, contested elections] from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
quote:Uhm yes, this is how we post on the Ship sometimes.
Nick Tamen: Thanks for clarifying that, since that's not the message I was picking up from your posts, particularly this one:
quote:
quote:There is such a magical way. It is called electronic voting.
cliffdweller: Unless you have some magical way to prevent [close, contested elections] from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
quote:You're sure the results are accurate because "they perform checks afterward"?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Because they perform checks afterwards.
Dave W.: What gives you such confidence that this is so?
[...]
But the election officials don't abandon the voting machines and join the party. Various checks are performed after Election Day (I think this already starts in the evening), to ensure that the voting record is accurate. They perform the same kind of checks they would do if they had something like a recount. These checks have always shown that the election results were accurate.
quote:"They" are the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). There are independent checks as well. I can find plenty of references, but they're mostly in Portuguese.
Dave W.: If you happen to have a reference that supplies more details, I'd be interested in taking a look at it. [...] And who are "they", and how do they ensure that the software on each machine did exactly and only what the law requires?
quote:Well, what she said was:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I do think that what you put in brackets in cliffdweller's post isn't what she intended, but that's another thing.)
quote:
The problem in 2000 is that the results were so incredibly close as to be in dispute by both sides. Unless you have some magical way to prevent that from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
quote:fwiw, the bracketed material was precisely what I intended.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Uhm yes, this is how we post on the Ship sometimes.
Nick Tamen: Thanks for clarifying that, since that's not the message I was picking up from your posts, particularly this one:
quote:
quote:There is such a magical way. It is called electronic voting.
cliffdweller: Unless you have some magical way to prevent [close, contested elections] from happening I don't see how it would be any different in Brazil.
(I do think that what you put in brackets in cliffdweller's post isn't what she intended, but that's another thing.)
quote:The bracketed remark said close and contested.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why would anyone want to prevent close elections from happening?
quote:This is a popular myth without any real basis in fact, possibly driven by an overly charitable desire to ascribe at least one positive attribute to Richard F. Nixon*. For a little perspective, in order to achieve outright victory in the 1960 Presidential race Nixon would have had to have the electoral results in Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, and New Jersey (I picked the states with the smallest Kennedy-favoring vote margin) all overturned without having any of the narrow Nixon-favoring states overturned. That's for an outright victory. If he managed to overturn the first three of those states (again without any of the 1960 Nixon states) he could have deprived Kennedy of an outright electoral college victory (because 15 electoral votes went to Harry F. Byrd), throwing the election to the 87th Congress, a body dominated almost 2:1 by Democrats.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The great thing that Nixon did when in his race was to simply concede when it was very close. If he had fought it out it would have been very destructive.
quote:The Election Workers' Prayer: "Dear Lord, whoever wins, let them win big. Amen."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why would anyone want to prevent close elections from happening?
quote:Independent checks like what, if you don't mind my asking?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:"They" are the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). There are independent checks as well. I can find plenty of references, but they're mostly in Portuguese.
Dave W.: If you happen to have a reference that supplies more details, I'd be interested in taking a look at it. [...] And who are "they", and how do they ensure that the software on each machine did exactly and only what the law requires?
quote:Thank you. If you want an analysis of the Republican side of things I recommend this article by Sam Wang. It may not help your denial, but it is informative.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Great post on the DNC Croesus, thanks. I'm presently in denial about the Republican race.
quote:The challenge Cliffdweller faces with this is that there was not a single election in 2000 -- nor will there be for 2016. One has fifty-plus elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors, all governed and managed by state officials and agencies. There continue to be grave problems of efficiency (see recent press coverage on Florida, Texas, and Missouri) and, in a few places, theoretically impartial agencies and officers are in reality, not so much. While I can see an argument for the Electoral College, I do not know if we can any longer smile upon a lack of national standards for their election.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The bracketed remark said close and contested.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why would anyone want to prevent close elections from happening?
Which was in response to your claim that Brazil has a magical way to prevent that. As I've said many times, it's not the closeness nor the "contested" part that concerns me, it is the lack of a clear process in handling the recount that was problematic in 2000. You seem to be inordinately fixated on getting a speedy count. I believe that goal is diametrically opposed to my goal of an accurate count, and in fact was the reason the 2000 election continues to be a source of controversy in the US.
quote:When the margin is very close, one could argue that it was a statistical tie, and so the statement that the electorate preferred one candidate over the other isn't accurate.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But when the margin is very close, the possibility that even a small problem affected the outcome goes way, way up. It's a matter of adequate checks within the system to deal with that.
quote:For the Brazilian friend I was talking to on that sunny beach in Brazil in January 2001 (did I mention how cold the beer was?), the delay was the most visible aspect of the faults in the system.
cliffdweller: You seem to be inordinately fixated on getting a speedy count.
quote:It doesn't have to be. Of course a balance needs to be struck between the two, but it is possible to be both speedy and accurate, at least to be better on both counts than what happened in Florida. If you have a crappy system, it will take a lot of time to be accurate. If you have a better system, it will take less time to be accurate. I took Brazil as an example, but a number of countries show that it can be done.
cliffdweller: I believe that goal is diametrically opposed to my goal of an accurate count
quote:I don't mind at all
Dave W.: Independent checks like what, if you don't mind my asking?
quote:Did that article provide any information at all about what the "checks" actually consist of? I can easily understand what's involved in a recount of paper ballots; what exactly are they supposed to be checking in the Brazilian electronic system?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't mind at all
Dave W.: Independent checks like what, if you don't mind my asking?
According to the article I just read, some of the institutions that execute independent checks are the Brazilian Order of Lawyers (OAB) and Public Persecutions (MP). There may be more; I'd have to dig deeper. I appreciate what you said about Petrobras above, but in all this turmoil, institutions like the OAB and the MP have a high standing with the Brazilian public. They are the ones who bring corruption scandals like this to the limelight.
quote:Yes. I acknowledged upthread the inherent problems of the electoral college and other factors that negatively impacted 2000. I am not defending any of those things. I'm just disputing the fact that Brazil has some magically way to provide both fast and accurate-to-the-point of indisputable results in a close election such as we had in 2000. It may be that no one does dispute them-- for a variety of reasons (cultural norms, no clear process, fear of retribution-- who knows?)-- or it may just be that they haven't had any large nat'l elections that have been that close (they're not exactly common in the US).
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The challenge Cliffdweller faces with this is that there was not a single election in 2000 -- nor will there be for 2016. One has fifty-plus elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors, all governed and managed by state officials and agencies. There continue to be grave problems of efficiency (see recent press coverage on Florida, Texas, and Missouri) and, in a few places, theoretically impartial agencies and officers are in reality, not so much. While I can see an argument for the Electoral College, I do not know if we can any longer smile upon a lack of national standards for their election.
quote:From what I've been able to read, they check whether the system is still sealed, they check whether the software has been tampered with, they check the printed voted record with the one that has been publicised, they check the number of voters with the number that came through the door. They have a couple of other tests that are secret to the public, secret even to the people who man the polling stations.
Dave W.: Did that article provide any information at all about what the "checks" actually consist of? I can easily understand what's involved in a recount of paper ballots; what exactly are they supposed to be checking in the Brazilian electronic system?
quote:But they can. Many countries can. Just because the US can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible. There's nothing special about close elections. Other countries have them too sometimes.
cliffdweller: I'm just disputing the fact that Brazil has some magically way to provide both fast and accurate-to-the-point of indisputable results in a close election such as we had in 2000.
quote:Yes, and that's what I've been saying a gazillion times on this thread already.
orfeo: Just saying. No system is perfect.
quote:Very true. Such a result can make it very hard to govern. But a statistical tie is not the same as an actual tie. Unless there is an actual tie, there is a majority vote, however small.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:When the margin is very close, one could argue that it was a statistical tie, and so the statement that the electorate preferred one candidate over the other isn't accurate.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But when the margin is very close, the possibility that even a small problem affected the outcome goes way, way up. It's a matter of adequate checks within the system to deal with that.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
According to the article I just read, some of the institutions that execute independent checks are the Brazilian Order of Lawyers (OAB) and Public Persecutions (MP).
quote:Thanks for looking into this, LeRoc. I'm going to stop pestering you about the details, since I don't want to seem to imply that you should feel at all obligated to research this stuff to make up for my lack of Portuguese. (I suspect I'm far more interested in the details of the system than you are; as you might expect, the advantages and disadvantages of various possible replacement systems were thoroughly reported on here in the US after the 2000 debacle.)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:From what I've been able to read, they check whether the system is still sealed, they check whether the software has been tampered with, they check the printed voted record with the one that has been publicised, they check the number of voters with the number that came through the door.
Dave W.: Did that article provide any information at all about what the "checks" actually consist of? I can easily understand what's involved in a recount of paper ballots; what exactly are they supposed to be checking in the Brazilian electronic system?
quote:I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system. And I think this illustrates one of the important drawbacks of electronic systems; they tend to obscure operations in a way that paper-based ones don't. I think there's a real value in having a process whose operations are readily observable at every stage; once votes are aggregated at any scale in machines like the ones used in Brazil (and about 1/3 of the US, it turns out) there's no recoverable physical trace between voter decisions and the number stored in the machines memory, and you're forced to rely on the assurances of technical experts in a way that you don't with other systems.
They have a couple of other tests that are secret to the public, secret even to the people who man the polling stations.
quote:Ha! I figured, but it was too good to let pass. After all, no one expects the Brazilian Inquisition.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL, I wanted to say Public Prosecutions.
quote:But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
Dave W.: I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system.
quote:Aaand you rub it in with a Monty Python quote. I guess I deserved that
Nick Tamen: After all, no one expects the Brazilian Inquisition.
quote:You are describing "security through obscurity" and nobody at all considers that to be actual security. With respect to banknotes, the real "bad people" know all the security features.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
quote:Exactly. I'm just describing what I read on a website a couple of hours ago.
Leorning Cniht: You are describing "security through obscurity"
quote:I think that's a terrible idea. Imagine the reaction when they announce that the widely publicized election results are going to be invalidated because of [redacted for reasons of state security].
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
Dave W.: I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system.
quote:Unlike the SCOTUS which does it for open but disreputable reasons.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If Brazil has government officials of such impeccable reputation that they could overturn election results for secret reasons without public opposition ... then it's even more different from America than I thought; and any election system that relies on the existence of such paragons of virtue seems drastically ill-suited for export to the US, whatever other advantages it may have.
quote:My tongue was in my cheek.
Dave W.: If Brazil has [...]
quote:So the most likely scenario is the campaign plays out against Senate confirmation hearings for Scalia's replacement. If the question of Supreme Court appointments doesn't come up at tonight's Republican debates the moderators should hand in their moderating licenses.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
quote:Absolutely. However, I would fully expect the confirmation hearings to be delayed/extended past the election, with the hopes that they can throw enough dirt to scare the prospective nominee off. If they're successful, they can put it off until after the inauguration.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, it's political all right. Ted Cruz didn't make it so -- everyone not related to Scalia immediately leapt to thinking about what happens next.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said that "The American people should have a voice in the selection ... Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Fucker. We had a voice in 2008 and 2012, when we elected Barack Obama.
quote:Forget Cruz, I only got as far as reading this piece of absurd nonsense from the Senate Majority leader:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Cruz had to immediately and tactlessly politicize news of Scalia's death.
quote:What utter rot. If the intention was for the people have a voice in Supreme Court appointments, they wouldn't be appointed they'd be elected.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has power to prevent confirmation of any nominee, made clear within hours of the first reports of Scalia's death that Obama should not try to make a nomination before he leaves office next January.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said.
quote:Fortunately, McConnell's position IS elected. I hope the voters in his state remember that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Forget Cruz, I only got as far as reading this piece of absurd nonsense from the Senate Majority leader:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Cruz had to immediately and tactlessly politicize news of Scalia's death.
quote:What utter rot. If the intention was for the people have a voice in Supreme Court appointments, they wouldn't be appointed they'd be elected.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has power to prevent confirmation of any nominee, made clear within hours of the first reports of Scalia's death that Obama should not try to make a nomination before he leaves office next January.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said.
quote:There is a difference between thinking something and saying something.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, it's political all right. Ted Cruz didn't make it so -- everyone not related to Scalia immediately leapt to thinking about what happens next.
quote:Yes indeed. Anthony Kennedy, for example, was confirmed in 1988 (another presidential election year). You can see Mitch McConnell's "Yea" vote right here, between James McClure and John Melcher.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said that "The American people should have a voice in the selection ... Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Fucker. We had a voice in 2008 and 2012, when we elected Barack Obama.
quote:Right. Because that would have a chance of being accepted.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If the Republicans do manage to keep a replacement from being named until after the election, assuming the new president is a Democrat he or she could always nominate Obama.
quote:Spot on. Partisanship oozes out of every pore, snuffing out any semblance of fairness and decency.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Anthony Kennedy, for example, was confirmed in 1988 (another presidential election year). You can see Mitch McConnell's "Yea" vote right here, between James McClure and John Melcher.
Hypocritical fucker.
quote:He could build houses for poor people with Jimmy Carter. That'd be good.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, Obama has said he doesn't want to be a Supeme. Michelle said once that he'd wanted to be an architect. Would be cool if he went on to a career that had nothing to do with politics!
quote:Sadly, very close to the truth except that its decisions overrule those of the legislative and executive branches. As a complete outsider, can I say that a major problem with decisions of SCOTUS is that so few of the Justices have had a career of the day-to-day grind of preparing cases for hearing, appearing for years as an advocate in a range of courts, developing a great familiarity with the application of the rules of evidence as a part of the fact-finding necessarily lying behind each and every decision. The absence of that background led to the very poor decision on SSM* - a collection of judgments that do not serve the essential purpose of justifying the result.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
quote:Well, sure. The law is badly drafted, by construction.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
quote:That's the sum total of what the Constitution says about weapons. Does it mean that the right to bear arms applies to a militia, or to anyone? What counts as a "militia", anyway? What counts as "arms", and what counts as "infringed"?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
quote:Not at all. The U.S. Constitution is written in very general terms so there is always interpretation involved in applying it to specific instances. To take an example involving Antonin Scalia, does the eighth amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibit things like public flogging or hand-branding [Word document], practices that were common in 1791 when the amendment was adopted? It should be noted that he later repudiated that view, indicating that flogging or branding is not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the meaning of the eighth amendment, at least as far as Scalia was concerned.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
quote:If Obama were interested, this could happen. If a Democrat is elected President, the "coat tails" could return the Senate to Democratic control. Unlike the last midterms, most of the seats in play this year have Republican incumbents.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Right. Because that would have a chance of being accepted.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If the Republicans do manage to keep a replacement from being named until after the election, assuming the new president is a Democrat he or she could always nominate Obama.
quote:Forgive my asking, but isn't it obvious that if a case can wind up through all the successive tiers of appeal courts to the final one, it ought to be the case that it could be decided either way? If it's obvious what the law is, if it's not persuasively arguable either way, it shouldn't end up in the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... All of which illustrates that for virtually any case that makes it through the appellate process to the Supreme Court will inevitably involve at least two plausible interpretations of the legal question at hand, that resolving such questions requires judgement, and that such judgements will be, at least in part, political in nature. ...
quote:No, and most of the non-political ones tend to get decided either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The ones that get all the press, however, are the explicitly political interpretation-of-the-constitution kind, and are the ones that tend to end up in a 5-4 split along philosophical grounds.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't, though, follow that means that all cases that get there should have political repercussions or involve political judgements as well as forensic ones.
quote:But at least we don't have to start packing for Canada in the fear that Scalia will be the next POTUS.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
At least we'll be able to hear something besides Trump, Trump, Trump. Unfortunately it will be Scalia, Scalia, Scalia.
) judicial examination of counsel?
quote:As to your first paragraph, that sort of comment usually appears in newspapers, written by someone styled a legal correspondent. By and large, it's both irrelevant and wrong.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Where I live, it sometimes happens that a candidate for the High Court is considered to have one set of beliefs because of their career bias, but ends up bringing down judgments of a different slant. Does that happen in the US?
I liked the comment to the effect that Supreme Court Judges often don't have experience as trial lawyers, but are often judicial (I assume) administrators or academics. In an Australian context, I'm not sure that matters, given that an action in our High Court is a different kettle of fish to an action in the lower courts, other than the Supreme Courts of the various states. (Hmmm, doubt is beginning to creep into my mind on that assumption already. I think it's valid, but needs qualification.) Is this the case in the US, where the Supreme Court deals with necessarily difficult or controversial points of law by submission and (I think from movies here
quote:Thanks for that, and it bears out what I was saying about the value of experience as an advocate. IIRC, Justice Souter made no headlines as a judge, just went about his work quietly and with great competence.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Yes, it happens in the U.S. from time to time. David Souter is a recent example.
quote:Yes, briefing is definitely more important in all appellate proceedings in the US, not just in the Supreme Court. That's where the argument is (hopefully) laid out in a thorough and analytical manner.
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, SCOTUS proceeds much more on the basis of written submissions than the High Ct, with less reliance upon oral argument. Oral argument has the major role here as can be seen in this transcript of day 1 of the hearing in the migration case. Not rivetting reading but if you can plough through at least some of it you will see just how difficult is the role of an advocate before the Court in dealing with the barrage of questioning at such an intense and high level.
quote:No, as I say that is the norm for appellate arguments here. So far as I know, 20 or 30 minutes is standard in federal appellate courts, and 30 is what we have in my state's appellate courts. From what I understand, it's similar in other states.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those time limits very tight - perhaps they are as tight as that because the Justices are not themselves advocates and are uncomfortable with any longer oral argument and debate?
quote:I should have noted that I put advocates in quotation marks simply because the word does not have the significance or meaning in the American legal system that it has in some other systems. We would not say someone is or isn't an advocate.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think it's anything to do with them not being "advocates."
quote:The South Carolina Republican primary is this coming Saturday, Feb. 20. The Democratic primary will be the following Saturday, Feb. 27.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So today is primary day in South Carolina, or at least it is for Republicans. (South Carolina's Democrats will be primarying next Tuesday.)
quote:I'm not convinced that "Mad Dog" Hillary could beat Martin Shkreli in the general election...
Originally posted by Sarah G:
AFAICS Clinton vs Trump should go one way.
quote:You are persistent...that's an admirable quality.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So who do you support, romanlion?
quote:That would require a constitutional amendment—either one actually setting a limit or retirement age itself, or one giving Congress the authority to do so. As things are now, Congress lacks authority to pass such a law.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a law imposing either a term limit or an age limit for Supreme Court justices could be one of the few things both parties could support.
quote:Presumably, if he won
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Maybe the party should go with a more exciting choice, like John McAfee.
, AirForce1 wouldn't be making any stops in Belize? Or countries having an extradition treaty with Belize?
quote:Ruth Bader Ginsburg started out at Harvard Law School, but she transferred to Columbia, and that's where her LL.B. is from.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The justices are extraordinarily similar -- all graduates of either Yale or Harvard, for instance.
quote:Three are Jewish; five (formerly six) are Roman Catholic.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The justices are extraordinarily similar --
quote:This is what 'the Supremes' means to me.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sitemap for the Supremes' homepage.
"About the court", "About us", and "FAQ" should answer most questions.
quote:At least in my experience, it's actually fairly common among lawyers, particularly those who interact with some regularity with SCOTUS, to refer to the Court as "the Supremes." I first heard it in law school in the mid-80s, when it seemed oh so irreverent. I hear it all the time now.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...which is why it's fun to refer to the rather stuffy Supreme Court in that way.
quote:I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. It says in Article 2 that the president appoints SC justices with the advice and consent of the Senate and Article 3, which is the one that is actually about the Judicial Branch, is quite brief and says little about the SC. The Federal Judicial system has largely been created by acts of congress, not the Constitution. FDR tried to greatly increase the number of SC justices with an act of Congress, and the only thing that stopped him was congress, not the SC. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:That would require a constitutional amendment—either one actually setting a limit or retirement age itself, or one giving Congress the authority to do so. As things are now, Congress lacks authority to pass such a law.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a law imposing either a term limit or an age limit for Supreme Court justices could be one of the few things both parties could support.
And, of course, justices can and do retire. Scalia hadn't, but others have. Granted, it may be more likely when you're 79, but any office holder can die while in office, no matter his or her age.
quote:Article III, § 1:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. . . . But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
quote:The part which I italicized has been understood since the adoption of the constitution that federal justices and judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from office by impeachment for "bad" behavior.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
quote:Retirement is actually the more typical way to leave the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Scalia and Rehnquist insisted on clinging to their tenure to the bitter end, but prior to Rehnquist's death the last Supreme Court Justice who didn't choose the time of his* own departure was Fred Vinson in 1953.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And, of course, justices can and do retire. Scalia hadn't, but others have. Granted, it may be more likely when you're 79, but any office holder can die while in office, no matter his or her age.
quote:Thanks! I had read through Article III but did not know it had been interpreted that way.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Article III, § 1:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. . . . But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
quote:The part which I italicized has been understood since the adoption of the constitution that federal justices and judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from office by impeachment for "bad" behavior.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
quote:It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.) If those Founding Fathers knew that they were confirming the appointment of arguably the country's first and most important "activist judge," perhaps they would have thought twice before confirming him so easily.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A good counter-example of the "no Supreme Court nominations by late-term presidents" comes from the early days of the Republic. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth tendered his resignation on September 30, 1800. John Adams nominated John Marshall to the post in January 1801 despite the fact that Adams had just been roundly defeated by Thomas Jefferson, who would take office in March. Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point, yet the senate had no problem consenting to Marshall's appointment.
It should be noted that 5 of the 32 members of the U.S. Senate considering Marshall's appointment were attendees at the Constitutional Convention (Abraham Baldwin (GA), Jonathan Dayton (NJ), John Langdon (NH), Gouverneur Morris (NY*), and Charles Pinckney (SC)). Marshall was approved by voice vote so we don't know which way any particular Senator voted, but to the best of my knowledge none of these five stood up and said "Hey, when we wrote the Constitution we never intended an outgoing president to make judicial appointments!"
--------------------
*Morris represented New York in the U.S. Senate, but was one of Pennsylvania's representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
quote:In American history at that point? LOL -- Adams was the original lame duck President. Even at that time Washington was a legendary figure, so he'd never have been labeled as a lame duck (IMO)!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point...
quote:Nonsense. Judicial review is used as one of the selling points of the new Constitution in Federalist 78.
Originally posted by stonespring:
It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.)
quote:The framers of the American Constitution clearly anticipated the Supreme Court functioning in precisely this way.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
quote:It's very difficult to construct an unawkward sentence that indicates I'm referring to a specific point within Adams' presidency and comparing it to all of American history.
Originally posted by The Riv:
quote:In American history at that point?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point...
quote:Tangent: I must note that Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, was not the first American decision to hold that the judiciary can declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional and unenforceable. That distinction goes to Bayard v. Singleton, decided by the North Carolina Court of Conference (predecessor to the North Carolina Supreme Court) in 1787. Marbury v. Madison was the first federal court case to so hold.
Originally posted by stonespring:
It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.)
quote:It couldn't lower my opinion of Trump any further (it's already lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut), but it did raise my opinion of the Pope another few points.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:Not just in the presidential race, but in Senate races as well.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court vacancy (supposing that Republicans in the Senate succeed in maintaining it up through the November election) will help Republicans or Democrats more in the Presidential race?
quote:The Pope will be fine.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:Although he did step in it a bit.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:The Pope will be fine.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:My concern is that the Supreme Court vacancy could motivate evangelical voters and other ideological members of the Republican base just like Same-Sex Marriage and "Culture War" issues in general did in 2002 and 2004. Karl Rove and other GOP party strategists helped motivate Republican turnout by putting measures on the ballot banning SSM after the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled that that state must give marriage rights to same-sex couples (this is before the 2015 Federal Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage the law of the land nationwide). If the Presidential and Senate races are seen in the minds of Republican base voters as explicitly tied to the issues of abortion, private businesses being legally required to provide services to the marriages of same-sex couples that request them, the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate, and (for another part of the Republican base) executive actions deferring deportation of large groups of undocumented immigrants - and in a way that is different than in previous election because the conservative majority on the court is at risk of being lost for the first time in decades - I can see the GOP benefitting from this. Democratic turnout could be lower than in 2008 and 2012 because the enthusiasm behind President Obama's first campaign (and anti-Bush feeling) of '08 and the loyalty to Obama of many African American Democrats after some pretty vicious opposition from the GOP from day one of his presidency is missing, plus it's always hard to re-elect the same party after 8 years of being in power. So while I still think the Democrats have a decent chance of winning the presidency and even gaining a majority in the Senate, I am concerned.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:Not just in the presidential race, but in Senate races as well.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court vacancy (supposing that Republicans in the Senate succeed in maintaining it up through the November election) will help Republicans or Democrats more in the Presidential race?
A majority of the Senate seats up for election this round are currently held by Republicans, meaning that, on average, they are more likely to lose seats rather than gain them. A Democratic win with strong coattails (or disgust at Republican behavior) means a possibility of a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate, which could approve a much more liberal justice than what Obama is likely to nominate to a Republican Senate.
Personally I don't think it will be a major issue in the election for most voters, though some special interest groups may see it as a reason to fling money one direction or the other. It isn't clear to me that either party would want to make it a campaign topic, because it probably doesn't sway voters much from their established positions, and focusing on it may turn off some middle-of-the-road voters.
So, while it may affect some strategy behind the scenes, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of rhetoric about it. Unless the Senate makes it one.
quote:Given that the current Pope has been providing accommodation in the Vatican for homeless people, I think he'll be fine on the walls question.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Although he did step in it a bit.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:The Pope will be fine.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
Let he without walls cast the first stone...
quote:Based on the campaign so far, Trump seems to benefit from justifiable criticism of his outrageous statements. It solidifies the "outsider" credentials.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:Well, Trump had better be careful or he may lose the Latino vote.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:
On Christmas Day 2013: Trump tweeted, "The new Pope is a humble man, very much like me, which probably explains why I like him so much!”
quote:I guess it's true that God is not like any mortal human being. Because personally, how the Almighty managed to not smack Trump upside the head with a big ol' bolt of lightening for saying "the pope is humble just like me"-- not even within my puny comprehension.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I guess Mr. Trump has changed his mind. According to Reuters:
quote:
On Christmas Day 2013: Trump tweeted, "The new Pope is a humble man, very much like me, which probably explains why I like him so much!”
quote:Republican voters have already been influenced against Pope Francis for some time now. Fox news criticisms him every chance they get, and talk radio absolutely despises him.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It couldn't lower my opinion of Trump any further (it's already lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut), but it did raise my opinion of the Pope another few points.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
How it will affect Republican voters, I have no idea. My mind doesn't work like theirs.
quote:The ones he didn't already lose when he said Mexicans coming to the US are rapists and that he's going to build a big wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it?
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Well, Trump had better be careful or he may lose the Latino vote.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:Two more points for Pope Francis!
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Republican voters have already been influenced against Pope Francis for some time now. Fox news criticisms him every chance they get, and talk radio absolutely despises him.
quote:sorry, my grin was for this
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The ones he didn't already lose when he said Mexicans coming to the US are rapists and that he's going to build a big wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it?
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Well, Trump had better be careful or he may lose the Latino vote.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
quote:But presumably they don't have votes.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The ones he didn't already lose when he said Mexicans coming to the US are rapists and that he's going to build a big wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it?
quote:But quite a few of them have children, spouses, friends, aunts, uncles, etc who are, in fact, voters. Barring some sort of memory-erasing mass delusion, that's not going to go down well in Nov.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:But presumably they don't have votes.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The ones he didn't already lose when he said Mexicans coming to the US are rapists and that he's going to build a big wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it?
quote:Himself vs. Clinton in 2020.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Jeb! is bowing out. I wonder if/when/who he will endorse.
quote:There are twelve Super-Tuesday states on the Republican side, controlling a total of 632 delegates. (For comparison, the four Republican primaries/caucuses to date have controlled 129 delegates.) Current polling has four states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont) going for Trump, one state (Texas) going for Cruz, two more where the polling is sparse enough to be uncertain (Virginia leans Trump and Arkansas leans Cruz in one pre-South Carolina poll apiece), and in five states (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and Tennessee) there are no polls recent enough to be worth considering.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Trump trounced his opponents in Nevada yesterday:
Trump -- 45.9
Rubio -- 23.9
Cruz -- 21.4
He said months ago he would run the table, and it's starting to look like he was right.
quote:The shift seems to be in the direction of Marco Rubio. You can understand the basic logic.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Koch brothers' best political operative has recently gone to work for Rubio's campaign (or his super-pac, I can't remember which, and it's not like it matters!). A quick look at the major papers didn't yield up much else in the way of reporting about what's going on with establishment Republican donors and operatives; if someone here sees something along those lines, I'd be grateful for a link. I would love to be a fly on the wall in one of the meetings they're no doubt holding today.
quote:Oh dear. It must be terrible for people like you who can't understand folks who disagree with your politics: "Oh why can't people see that people like me know best?"
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, the politics of fear.
I see Trump"s fear - it's the fear of the rich. They all build more and more walls and live in self-contained bubbles fearful to protect all their stuff and their lifestyles.
But the voters, why on Earth are they taken in?
quote:Because there is nothing in-between Trump and socialism. Obama is not a socialist and I'm quite happy with him, and I'd even be happy with a moderate Republican. Trump is just a fascist.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Oh dear. It must be terrible for people like you who can't understand folks who disagree with your politics: "Oh why can't people see that people like me know best?"
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, the politics of fear.
I see Trump"s fear - it's the fear of the rich. They all build more and more walls and live in self-contained bubbles fearful to protect all their stuff and their lifestyles.
But the voters, why on Earth are they taken in?
Can you see the arrogance behind your argument?
Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion you understand, the voters WANT what they are seeing. Perhaps they are NOT being taken in but actually are voting in the full knowledge of what they are voting for.
I admit that might be a bit of a stretch for committed socialists who have a habit of believing they really do know what is best for people.
Maybe you need to consider the nightmare position, not that Trump is elected, but that people don't actually want your style of politics. Perhaps it is socialism that is wrong, not the voters.
quote:And maybe that is why they are voting for him. Perhaps they want a fascist.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Because there is nothing in-between Trump and socialism. Obama is not a socialist and I'm quite happy with him, and I'd even be happy with a moderate Republican. Trump is just a fascist.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Oh dear. It must be terrible for people like you who can't understand folks who disagree with your politics: "Oh why can't people see that people like me know best?"
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, the politics of fear.
I see Trump"s fear - it's the fear of the rich. They all build more and more walls and live in self-contained bubbles fearful to protect all their stuff and their lifestyles.
But the voters, why on Earth are they taken in?
Can you see the arrogance behind your argument?
Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion you understand, the voters WANT what they are seeing. Perhaps they are NOT being taken in but actually are voting in the full knowledge of what they are voting for.
I admit that might be a bit of a stretch for committed socialists who have a habit of believing they really do know what is best for people.
Maybe you need to consider the nightmare position, not that Trump is elected, but that people don't actually want your style of politics. Perhaps it is socialism that is wrong, not the voters.
quote:I honestly don't think he has any real policy other than the promotion of Trump. He steers into the updraft, and fear has the strongest current.
I don't know much about Trump's economic policies actually, but I doubt if he has this in mind. He is certainly a demagogue.
quote:Neither do I, but Boogie's point about why are the voters being "taken in" wasn't rhetorical in an academic or collegiate way, deigned to actually determine the information.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have no objection to questions of the form "why do people vote for candidate / party X?"
quote:Yes it was. I am utterly bemused that anyone would vote for him.
Originally posted by deano:
It was a polemical, ideological cry of indignation that people are actually voting for Trump in the first place.
quote:I did not say this. Fear has nothing to do with intellect. I am sure very bright people are voting for him.
Originally posted by deano:
... and that obviously it was because they are not bright enough to see through his lies.
quote:I gather that they must have neglected to mention that they want to come to the U.S. and take our jobs.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But all prejudice has its roots in fear. I spend a few weeks every couple of years on one of the poorest communities in Mexico, working on a project with the locals there. I can't even begin to unravel his unbelievable hatred for them.
quote:But the hatred he is espousing is WHY people are voting for him. Because those voters hate poor Mexicans like he does.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I did not say this. Fear has nothing to do with intellect. I am sure very bright people are voting for him.
But all prejudice has its roots in fear. I spend a few weeks every couple of years on one of the poorest communities in Mexico, working on a project with the locals there. I can't even begin to unravel his unbelievable hatred for them.
quote:I think you underestimate the degree to which Americans tie "culture" to "skin color", and overestimated the degree to which racism has been eliminated in America.
Originally posted by deano:
I'm sure some here will put that down to racism, but I think it is more subtle. I think it is a rejection against the "other" culture.
<snip>
With few exceptions people tend to feel more comfortable within a culture with which they identify as being part of. I don't accept that skin colour is relevant to that.
quote:A snarky tweet on the promotional images for that event.
Originally posted by The Riv:
It seems as if Rubio has "called out" Trump just in time for tonight's Republican *cough* debate *cough*.
quote:
I suspect that a white, Christian, non-racist, middle-class family from Texas could quite happily spend a week living with a black, non-racist, Christian, middle-class family in Maine and they would get on comfortably. The cultures are so similar that the skin colour wouldn't matter.
re Maine and Texas cultures being that similar, if at all.
quote:Excellent response. Explains Trump's success so eloquently and succinctly.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
deano said:
quote:
I suspect that a white, Christian, non-racist, middle-class family from Texas could quite happily spend a week living with a black, non-racist, Christian, middle-class family in Maine and they would get on comfortably. The cultures are so similar that the skin colour wouldn't matter.
quote:Yeah! Not like your reasoned response to Crœsos. Oh wait.
Originally posted by deano:
Excellent response. Explains Trump's success so eloquently and succinctly.
quote:Nope. My analysis was taken from Robert O. Paxton's "An Anatomy of Fascism". Sorry to pop that bubble.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah! Not like your reasoned response to Crœsos. Oh wait.
Originally posted by deano:
Excellent response. Explains Trump's success so eloquently and succinctly.
There is a fear and a frustration shared across boundaries, this much you got right. But limiting the cause to moderate politicians is insane to the point being concerned for the competence of anyone who truly believed it. If a finger could be pointed in a single direction, it would be at conservative politicians, as both the financial and security fears are a more direct result of their policies. The honest assessment is that politicians of all stripes share in the fucked-up system that causes much of the frustration.
As Trump plays to these insecurities without offering any real path beyond them, it is right and proper to be derisive of those who support him.
They are akin to people tired of being in a leaky, sail torn boat grabbing on to a lead weight simply because it is different.
quote:I haven't read that book, so I looked it up. From a review
Originally posted by deano:
My analysis was taken from Robert O. Paxton's "An Anatomy of Fascism". Sorry to pop that bubble.
quote:So perhaps you should
Paxton debunks the consoling fiction that Mussolini and Hitler seized power. Rather, conservative elites desperate to subdue leftist populist movements ''normalized'' the fascists by inviting them to share power. It was the mob that flocked to fascism, but the elites who elevated it.
quote:at reading it.
Have another go.
quote:I have read it. Okay, I will proof-text from it if you want. Wait one...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I haven't read that book, so I looked it up. From a review
Originally posted by deano:
My analysis was taken from Robert O. Paxton's "An Anatomy of Fascism". Sorry to pop that bubble.
quote:So perhaps you should
Paxton debunks the consoling fiction that Mussolini and Hitler seized power. Rather, conservative elites desperate to subdue leftist populist movements ''normalized'' the fascists by inviting them to share power. It was the mob that flocked to fascism, but the elites who elevated it.
quote:at reading it.
Have another go.
quote:... while simultaneously lying about collecting welfare....
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:I gather that they must have neglected to mention that they want to come to the U.S. and take our jobs.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But all prejudice has its roots in fear. I spend a few weeks every couple of years on one of the poorest communities in Mexico, working on a project with the locals there. I can't even begin to unravel his unbelievable hatred for them.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm sure some here will put that down to racism, but I think it is more subtle. I think it is a rejection against the "other" culture.
quote:Maybe I'm not picking up on some subtlety of your argument, but "Trump's followers can't be racist because they're more like Nazis" seems an extremely unconvincing point to make. Can you expand a little on why fascism precludes racism?
Originally posted by deano:
But it gets worse...
“In Germany after 1930 only the communists, along with the Nazis, were increasing their vote.35 Like the Nazis, the German communists thrived on unemployment and a widespread perception that the traditional parties and constitutional system had failed”
Excerpt From: Paxton, Robert O. “The Anatomy of Fascism.” Random House, 2005-01-02T00:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
And for those who think that Trump doesn't know how to govern because he isn't a professional politician....
“A central ingredient in the conservatives’ calculation was that the Austrian corporal and the greenhorn Italian ex-socialist rabble-rouser would not have the faintest idea what to do with high office. They would be incapable of governing without the cultivated and experienced conservative leaders’ savoir faire.”
Excerpt From: Paxton, Robert O. “The Anatomy of Fascism.” Random House, 2005-01-02T00:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
"“An essential step in the fascist march to acceptance and power was to persuade law-and-order conservatives and members of the middle class to tolerate fascist violence as a harsh necessity in the face of Left provocation.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
“A central ingredient in the conservatives’ calculation
quote:Maybe you're having a think about that one.
Originally posted by deano:
Here you go...
“One reason why the Nazis succeeded in supplanting the liberal middle-class parties was the liberals’ perceived failure to deal with the twin crises Germany faced in the late 1920s. One crisis was many Germans’ sense of national humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles”
Excerpt From: Paxton, Robert O. “The Anatomy of Fascism.” Random House, 2005-01-02T00:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
quote:Maybe you're having a think about that one.
Originally posted by deano:
Here you go...
“One reason why the Nazis succeeded in supplanting the liberal middle-class parties was the liberals’ perceived failure to deal with the twin crises Germany faced in the late 1920s. One crisis was many Germans’ sense of national humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles”
Excerpt From: Paxton, Robert O. “The Anatomy of Fascism.” Random House, 2005-01-02T00:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
quote:One. I accented others in your very own quotes.
Originally posted by deano:
“One reason
quote:Probably because of Pomona's comment that she thought that Trump was a fascist. Deano has at least referred to Paxton's great work on the subject of fascism. A quick glance at that shows that Trump meets none of Paxton's criteria for fascism. A mis-applied label.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus H. Christ, when did this thread become a willy-waving contest about the Nazis? FFS.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Probably because of Pomona's comment that she thought that Trump was a fascist. Deano has at least referred to Paxton's great work on the subject of fascism. A quick glance at that shows that Trump meets none of Paxton's criteria for fascism. A mis-applied label.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus H. Christ, when did this thread become a willy-waving contest about the Nazis? FFS.
quote:America's had some ordinary presidents over the years and I'm pretty sure people said the same about Ronald Reagan thirty-five years ago. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the box either but he played to the gallery as an ordinary guy and not only did he get elected, but he got re-elected.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I just don't reckon Trump has the brains to make this sort of decision, to make the best decision on this for America and its allies for the next sixty or so years. I don't reckon he's the bloke for this job.
quote:But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice. Only you, viewing it through your subjective lenses, percieve it as imagined.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]Trump is playing to an updated and I think more fearful gallery. So long as he can keep fears and imagined injustices bubbling he's in with a very good chance.
quote:That's a very high recommendation.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Republican voters have already been influenced against Pope Francis for some time now. Fox news criticisms him every chance they get, and talk radio absolutely despises him.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It couldn't lower my opinion of Trump any further (it's already lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut), but it did raise my opinion of the Pope another few points.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
How it will affect Republican voters, I have no idea. My mind doesn't work like theirs.
quote:Yes, but both the Tories and the Republicans seem to have had the knack, historically, of saying to the common man, yes, I sympathize with your grievances, and I have the solution. Generally, the solution is to increase the wealth of the rich, but that is covered up in various ways.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I would say that Trump is a part (in admittedly a less-overtly political way hitherto) of that elite (or set of elites); Sanders and Corbyn are not.
quote:Trump's innovation is that he understands there's a certain part of the Republican electorate that doesn't want its racism in "abstract" form. In other words, he's willing to come right out and plainly say what every other Republican candidate is only hinting at with euphemisms and dogwhistles. If you were going to support a candidate with those positions, why wouldn't you prefer one willing to state them directly rather than just hint around about them?
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
quote:This could make for interesting campaigning.
Here’s a part of the political calendar that nobody in the Republican Party seems to have noticed: This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump could be forced to take time out for some unwanted personal business: He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.
In court filings last Friday, lawyers for both sides in a long-running civil lawsuit over the now defunct Trump University named Trump on their witness lists. That makes it all but certain that the reality-show star and international businessman will be forced to be grilled under oath over allegations in the lawsuit that he engaged in deceptive trade practices and scammed thousands of students who enrolled in his “university” courses in response to promises he would make them rich in the real estate market.
Although the case has been winding its way through the courts for the past five years — and Trump has denied all wrongdoing — the final pretrial conference is now slated for May 6, according to the latest pleadings in the case. No trial date has been set, but the judge has indicated his interest in moving the case forward, the pleadings show.
quote:Yeah I've been thinking about Reagan, and I remember as a teenager gleefully and ignorantly laughing at the idea that the Americans could elect an actor. What I didn't know was that Reagan had spent decades as a politician and an activist and was nobody's fool. He was just a bit dithery and a bit folksy, and American folksy does not play well in the rest of the Anglosphere. I think he had some form of dementia in his retirement, and that softens my opinion of him as my father experienced a similar decline.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:America's had some ordinary presidents over the years and I'm pretty sure people said the same about Ronald Reagan thirty-five years ago. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the box either but he played to the gallery as an ordinary guy and not only did he get elected, but he got re-elected.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I just don't reckon Trump has the brains to make this sort of decision, to make the best decision on this for America and its allies for the next sixty or so years. I don't reckon he's the bloke for this job.
Trump is playing to an updated and I think more fearful gallery. So long as he can keep fears and imagined injustices bubbling he's in with a very good chance.
quote:But what if the feeling is based on a flawed analysis? What if the analysis is defective because it is based on biased reporting rather than objective fact? What if sending them all back where they came from and building a wall to keep them there doesn't work, because they were not the problem? That, in fact, a society bled of many useful workers and services, is now even less satisfying than before?
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
quote:Sounds to me like you're on the right foot!
Originally posted by simontoad:
It may well be that people like me, intensely interested in US Politics but lazy and foreign are also wrong-footed about Trump. I don't reckon I am. I think he's an utter turd. I reckon he cares about other people about as much as he cares for the snot on his handkerchief.
quote:That's a good point. Fascist = thoroughly bad egg.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Probably because of Pomona's comment that she thought that Trump was a fascist. Deano has at least referred to Paxton's great work on the subject of fascism. A quick glance at that shows that Trump meets none of Paxton's criteria for fascism. A mis-applied label.
quote:That's certainly the impression he gives. Indeed, I suspect there are plenty of people in Aberdeen who think that is being unfair both to snot and to faeces.
Originally posted by simontoad:
... It may well be that people like me, intensely interested in US Politics but lazy and foreign are also wrong-footed about Trump. I don't reckon I am. I think he's an utter turd. I reckon he cares about other people about as much as he cares for the snot on his handkerchief.
quote:Then unless you do something to really PROVE beyond all doubt that the analysis is flawed, you get people like Trump. It may not even work then.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:But what if the feeling is based on a flawed analysis?
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
quote:Why are these two alternatives? Can't people become racists primarily because they are frightened and frustrated?
Originally posted by deano:
Some, like the majority of middle-class and working claess who voted for fascist organisations in between-the-wars Europe are frightened that they will become poor, frustrated that none of the mainstream parties can help them, and relieved that someone is saying they understand their fears and is offering a solution.
And those numbers will probably dwarf the racist supporters.
quote:In this case the "problem" facing Trump voters is that their co-workers are Mexicans*, their boss is a woman, and the President is a Negro!
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice. Only you, viewing it through your subjective lenses, percieve it as imagined.
If, as I expect, Clinton gets in, then she will have to address the issue of why so many people voted for Trump. If she doesn't, then it will merely reinforce the "image" that the moderate, liberal political system is deadlocked and can't fix their problem.
The moderate, liberal political system can't fix this "problem" because it doesn't recognize it as a problem has neither the desire nor the power to make it 1950 again when all "those people" knew their place. Quite frankly there's no "fix" for this "injustice" that doesn't require even greater injustice to an even larger number of people than those making the complaint.quote:
Trump's up there on the stage telling them he'll make America great again, make them all winners, get rid of the foreigners, and they go nuts for it... because what he's really telling them is that he's going to somehow make them young again. I mean it. He is telling them he can take them back to the world they remember. And yeah, that world never really existed, but that's not the point. It's not political for them - it's personal. They're not mad about immigration policy, or tax policy, or the fact that we're normalizing relations with the Iranians. They're mad because they're getting old. Aren't we all? So this guy makes a crazy promise to bring them through some worm-hole into a fantasy-world 1950's America, and they can't say no.
quote:They may truly feel there exists an injustice, but this does not make the injustice real.
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
quote:Moderate liberal system? Is there a different United States then the one I am familiar with? The one I know of is right of centre, has had more recent political bullshit perpetrated by the right than the "left" and is still recovering from the global meltdown instigated by those who benefit far more from conservative policies than liberal.
Originally posted by deano:
If, as I expect, Clinton gets in, then she will have to address the issue of why so many people voted for Trump. If she doesn't, then it will merely reinforce the "image" that the moderate, liberal political system is deadlocked and can't fix their problem.
quote:If Trump supporters were interested in facts and had the patience to listen to real solutions, they would not have elected the politicians who frustrate them in the first place and certainly would not be following behind a day-glow, narcissistic, juvenile gas-bag.
Originally posted by deano:
Can someone answer me this? Why are people voting for Trump? Not is a hand-waving, oh they are falling for his lies, way, but with actual, real facts.
quote:No. But their votes are very, very real!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They may truly feel there exists an injustice, but this does not make the injustice real.
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
quote:Dear God, you are going to let him win!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:If Trump supporters were interested in facts and had the patience to listen to real solutions, they would not have elected the politicians who frustrate them in the first place and certainly would not be following behind a day-glow, narcissistic, juvenile gas-bag. [/QB]
Originally posted by deano:
Can someone answer me this? Why are people voting for Trump? Not is a hand-waving, oh they are falling for his lies, way, but with actual, real facts.
quote:I am ENGLISH!
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Why would voters elect Clinton if they think Trump has a case? Surely if you think Trump has a case, you should elect Trump!
quote:Again, what parts of Trump's platform do you think Hillary Clinton should adopt?
Originally posted by deano:
If any of you on here are involved in politics in the USA, then get involved with returning Clinton, and FORCE her to admit that Trump has a case, and that she will actually DO something to fix it.
quote:All it takes to elect the demagogue, yes. But my question was, what happens then? Because no solution, however final, works if it is not in fact the answer to the problem. So tell me how Trump's second term works?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Then unless you do something to really PROVE beyond all doubt that the analysis is flawed, you get people like Trump. It may not even work then.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:But what if the feeling is based on a flawed analysis?
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
Sorry, but it is irrelevant that the analysis is flawed. It may be but the perception is real, and that is all it takes.
quote:Well, his voters watch Brad Paisley and Gretchen Wilson videos and what kind of second term do you think he will allow you, if any?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:All it takes to elect the demagogue, yes. But my question was, what happens then? Because no solution, however final, works if it is not in fact the answer to the problem. So tell me how Trump's second term works?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Then unless you do something to really PROVE beyond all doubt that the analysis is flawed, you get people like Trump. It may not even work then.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:But what if the feeling is based on a flawed analysis?
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice.
Sorry, but it is irrelevant that the analysis is flawed. It may be but the perception is real, and that is all it takes.
quote:How does this explain the particularly horrifying phenomenon of young people supporting Trump? There seem to be a fair few of them judging by the reports I've seen of his rallies.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A somewhat snarky analysis of the situation I described:
quote:
Trump's up there on the stage telling them he'll make America great again, make them all winners, get rid of the foreigners, and they go nuts for it... because what he's really telling them is that he's going to somehow make them young again. I mean it. He is telling them he can take them back to the world they remember. And yeah, that world never really existed, but that's not the point. It's not political for them - it's personal. They're not mad about immigration policy, or tax policy, or the fact that we're normalizing relations with the Iranians. They're mad because they're getting old. Aren't we all? So this guy makes a crazy promise to bring them through some worm-hole into a fantasy-world 1950's America, and they can't say no.
quote:It's interesting to note where Trump breaks with the Republican elites. His positions on immigration or foreign policy (to the extent that he's been willing to describe them) aren't that different than those espoused by Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio (to the extent that they've espoused anything). The big difference is Donald Trump's pledge to preserve Social Security rather than cutting it. He seems to have shrewdly noticed that cutting Social Security is very popular with the Republican elite and donor class, but very unpopular with actual Republican voters.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Trumps case is that YOUR problems are not HIS and the elite's, they're Mexico and Islam.
quote:A fair number, but interestingly as a group they don't particularly like Trump. In the last two primary/caucus states "Under 30" is the only age demographic to prefer someone other than Trump. In South Carolina the under 30s (who made up 10% of the Republican primary electorate) narrowly preferred Ted Cruz and in Nevada (where they were 7% of the Republican primary electorate) they emphatically preferred Marco Rubio.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
How does this explain the particularly horrifying phenomenon of young people supporting Trump? There seem to be a fair few of them judging by the reports I've seen of his rallies.
quote:This is confusing "injustice" with other words.
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice. Only you, viewing it through your subjective lenses, percieve it as imagined.
quote:Trump is a reality television contestant. It was only a matter of time before the genre became so ubiquitous that people started having difficulty distinguishing it from reality. That is, after all, the conceit of the genre.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think Trump is a fascist. I don't think he's much of anything, really. I still feel that this is all a game to him.
quote:And if the FBI decides prosecute Hillary for her illegal email system, we could have both parties lead players in hot water at about election time.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in other Trump-related news:
quote:This could make for interesting campaigning.
This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump... He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.
quote:Well said.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is confusing "injustice" with other words.
Justice is not entirely objective, I will grant you, but the idea that people can treat anything and everything as an "injustice" and get away with it is absurd.
Recently in Australia there was some social media noise about a woman who bought milk in one chain of supermarkets, then took it back to an entirely different competitor chain for a swap/refund and then went online to complain when the competitor said no, she would have to go to the original store. "Why?" she said, "it's all just milk, it's all the same" (managing to ignore that she was actually attempting to swap one variation of milk for another).
Do you really want to legitimise a sense of injustice of such a person, a person who has inarguable objective facts against her? Do you want to legitimise a sense of injustice from someone who believes Barack Obama is in breach of the US Constitution for being a Kenyan Muslim? Do you want to legitimise a sense of injustice from someone who doesn't just believe that taxes are too high, but that taxes are illegal?
People who believe manifestly wrong things don't deserve to be told their attitude is legitimate and that they ought to be listened to. They require education and correction. There is still SOME such thing as objective truth in this world, and I for one am not in favour of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of justice when it's based on things that are demonstrably untrue.
Thank you.
quote:It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is confusing "injustice" with other words.
Originally posted by deano:
But the thing is, to someone who feels they have an injustice, that is reality. There is nothing imagined about their injustice. Only you, viewing it through your subjective lenses, percieve it as imagined.
Justice is not entirely objective, I will grant you, but the idea that people can treat anything and everything as an "injustice" and get away with it is absurd.
Recently in Australia there was some social media noise about a woman who bought milk in one chain of supermarkets, then took it back to an entirely different competitor chain for a swap/refund and then went online to complain when the competitor said no, she would have to go to the original store. "Why?" she said, "it's all just milk, it's all the same" (managing to ignore that she was actually attempting to swap one variation of milk for another).
Do you really want to legitimise a sense of injustice of such a person, a person who has inarguable objective facts against her? Do you want to legitimise a sense of injustice from someone who believes Barack Obama is in breach of the US Constitution for being a Kenyan Muslim? Do you want to legitimise a sense of injustice from someone who doesn't just believe that taxes are too high, but that taxes are illegal?
People who believe manifestly wrong things don't deserve to be told their attitude is legitimate and that they ought to be listened to. They require education and correction. There is still SOME such thing as objective truth in this world, and I for one am not in favour of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of justice when it's based on things that are demonstrably untrue.
quote:Okay - to reiterate the question Crœsos asks above, which parts of Trump's platform do you think that Clinton should adopt?
Originally posted by deano:
It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
How is your plan working out in practice?
quote:As I said, I'm not sure it would work anyway if the PERCEPTION is ingrained too deeply.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Okay - to reiterate the question Crœsos asks above, which parts of Trump's platform do you think that Clinton should adopt?
Originally posted by deano:
It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
How is your plan working out in practice?
quote:When that question has been answered, then we can analyse the PERCEPTION being taken as real, and that will drive the answer to your question.
Originally posted by deano on 26th Feb at 12:14
Can someone answer me this? Why are people voting for Trump? Not is a hand-waving, oh they are falling for his lies, way, but with actual, real facts. Because if the moderate, centre-left of American politics can't answer that, then he, or someone similar, will be your President sooner rather than later.
quote:However woolly that may sound, justice has to be founded in some generally accepted objective standard. Otherwise, it degenerates to, 'I complain, therefore I am', 'I feel it: therefore it is valid' and 'the louder a person shrieks, the more they should get what they want'.
Originally posted by deano:
It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
How is your plan working out in practice?
quote:Then Trump wins, because that is what is happening as far as I can see. I have no other explanation.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:However woolly that may sound, justice has to be founded in some generally accepted objective standard. Otherwise, it degenerates to, 'I complain, therefore I am', 'I feel it: therefore it is valid' and 'the louder a person shrieks, the more they should get what they want'.
Originally posted by deano:
It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
How is your plan working out in practice?
quote:The issue with your argument is that there is already a 'less extreme' and 'more palatable' version of the policies Trump pedals - they are the platforms of Cruz and Rubio.
Originally posted by deano:
Do you think I am advocating Clinton take wholesale slabs of Trumps policy and claim it as her own?
If so that is a facile interpretation of what I have been saying.
quote:There is a BIG difference between winning a race for a party nomination and winning an electoral college race.
Originally posted by deano:
...Then Trump wins, because that is what is happening as far as I can see. I have no other explanation.
quote:Certainly I will try, as soon as someone can tell me WHY people are voting for Trump.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a slippery argument deano. At once you seem to be saying Trump is on to something, but not something that anyone else should necessarily adopt, but something that they need to respond to in a way that they aren't currently responding to. And those of us who can't quite grasp that are in an ivory-tower world.
Can you name any one practical thing or policy change that another politician should be making to deal with Trump that isn't currently being done?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a slippery argument deano. At once you seem to be saying Trump is on to something, but not something that anyone else should necessarily adopt, but something that they need to respond to in a way that they aren't currently responding to. And those of us who can't quite grasp that are in an ivory-tower world.
Can you name any one practical thing or policy change that another politician should be making to deal with Trump that isn't currently being done?
quote:I expect people are voting for a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by deano:
Certainly I will try, as soon as someone can tell me WHY people are voting for Trump.
quote:CNN
Many people CNN interviewed were not turned off by Trump's provocative remarks — but inclined to agree with his statements and his unvarnished approach to self-expression. There is no getting around the impression that for some, racial attitudes are fueling their support.
But there are also other factors feeding the enthusiasm: the belief that Americans are unsafe, and he will protect them; an appreciation for the simple good vs. evil worldview he presents; an admiration of his celebrity status and business background. And, above all, a faith that he will restore an America they feel has been lost to them, and dream of experiencing again.
quote:Why would we? You have demanded that people answer this question for a while now. First, you said that you wouldn't accept simple answers. When people tried to give a more complex answer, it was too intellectual. I see no reason why we should honour your demand, complying with rather arbitrary criteria of what you would find a valid answer.
deano: Certainly I will try, as soon as someone can tell me WHY people are voting for Trump.
quote:No-one is implementing my plan, because politics has become such a popularity contest and they're all completely terrified of telling any potential voter that what they believe is a pile of crap.
Originally posted by deano:
It seems like a lovely view from the top of that intellectual, academic, idealistic ivory tower.
How is your plan working out in practice?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trump is a reality television contestant.
quote:Not was. Is.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Actually, he wasn't a contestant himself, he just hired and fired contestants.
quote:The only time a Republican won a presidential election in more than 25 years was in 2004.
Belle Ringer: Isn't it pretty rare for one party to keep the presidency more than 8 years?
quote:You make it seem as though 25 years is a long time.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The only time a Republican won a presidential election in more than 25 years was in 2004.**
Belle Ringer: Isn't it pretty rare for one party to keep the presidency more than 8 years?
quote:Matt Taibbi explains in greater detail. (Site may autoplay ads with sound)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trump is a reality television contestant.quote:Not was. Is.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Actually, he wasn't a contestant himself, he just hired and fired contestants.
I'm not describing his biography. I'm describing what he is doing, right now.
quote:
But, in an insane twist of fate, this bloated billionaire scion has hobbies that have given him insight into the presidential electoral process. He likes women, which got him into beauty pageants. And he likes being famous, which got him into reality TV. He knows show business.
That put him in position to understand that the presidential election campaign is really just a badly acted, billion-dollar TV show whose production costs ludicrously include the political disenfranchisement of its audience. Trump is making a mockery of the show, and the Wolf Blitzers and Anderson Coopers of the world seem appalled. How dare he demean the presidency with his antics?
But they've all got it backward. The presidency is serious. The presidential electoral process, however, is a sick joke, in which everyone loses except the people behind the rope line. And every time some pundit or party spokesman tries to deny it, Trump picks up another vote.
quote:I think that yes, there is.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Is there any sign of Trump broadening his base beyond Republicans to Independents, those who havn't voted in the last 2 elections, or disaffected Democrats? I'm not asking this rhetorically - I'm just asking about the next hurdle.
He seems to be firing up a base within the Republican party, but is there even a hint of this movement getting beyond a core and winning over others?
quote:
Asked about the tweet in a TV interview, Mr Trump said he wanted "to be associated with interesting quotes".
"Mussolini was Mussolini... What difference does it make?" Mr Trump said when asked about the retweet on NBC's Meet The Press programme. "It got your attention, didn't it?"
quote:Indeed.
Doublethink.: But whip up the kind of sentiment he has been going for, and I don't think you can stuff that genie back in the bottle.
quote:To be honest nothing seems to be a step too far - banning Muslims, retweeting Mussolini quotes, obvious dissembling during live debates, blatant and uncaring inconsistency in public positions...
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think he's taken a step too far, but we shall see.
quote:It's "Klansman" - capital K.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't imagine a failure to bow to the pressure from some liberal elite media-types clammering for a politically-correct denounciation of a clansman or two will matter.
quote:Yeah, I try not to think about it too much.
Originally posted by mdijon:
But what a price in terms of the damage to the political and social environment in the US and its reputation... and what a risk!
quote:I hope you're right. The GOP needs a new script.
Originally posted by RuthW:
When I do think about it, it occurs to me that some good might come out of this. If nothing else, the moderates in the Republican party may have to give real consideration to whether they want to be in the same party with avowed racists. They've gotten away with looking the other way for far too long.
quote:Can't, or shouldn't?
Originally posted by RuthW:
[The Republican party is so fucked up this won't torpedo Trump's chances in the primaries, but he cannot run like this all year and expect to win in November.
quote:A political analyst friend told me that commentators, being part of the machine, were paying little attention to the boredom factor. When I asked what he meant, he said that the media could only sustain excitement on a particular topic for a limited period. He believes that, should Mr Trump's popularity and visibility be at this level in the August and September before polling day, he would have a chance, but that eight months was too long a period to occupy the public mind. I upbraided him for his cynicism but he seemed to take it as a compliment.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Can't, or shouldn't?
Originally posted by RuthW:
[The Republican party is so fucked up this won't torpedo Trump's chances in the primaries, but he cannot run like this all year and expect to win in November.
quote:For the past half century that answer has been "yes", ever since the mass migration of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and his ilk into the Republican party. The over-arching message of the Republican party ever since it implemented the Southern Strategy has been that America is in decline and that all its problems are caused by shiftless blacks on welfare (or committing crimes) and immigrants taking jobs from good, honest (and therefore white) Americans.
Originally posted by RuthW:
When I do think about it, it occurs to me that some good might come out of this. If nothing else, the moderates in the Republican party may have to give real consideration to whether they want to be in the same party with avowed racists. They've gotten away with looking the other way for far too long.
quote:So, how do you think that Hispanic outreach is working out for the GOP?
The Republican Party must focus its efforts to earn new supporters and voters in the following demographic communities: Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Indian Americans, Native Americans, women, and youth. This priority needs to be a continual effort that affects every facet of our Party’s activities, including our messaging, strategy, outreach, and budget.
Unless the RNC gets serious about tackling this problem, we will lose future elections; the data demonstrates this. In both 2008 and 2012, President Obama won a combined 80 percent of the votes of all minority voters, including not only African Americans but also Hispanics, Asians, and others. The minority groups that President Obama carried with 80 percent of the vote in 2012 are on track to become a majority of the nation’s population by 2050.
quote:Don't ask Hillary about former Klansman and US Sen. Robert Byrd, though.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Yeah, I try not to think about it too much.
Originally posted by mdijon:
But what a price in terms of the damage to the political and social environment in the US and its reputation... and what a risk!
When I do think about it, it occurs to me that some good might come out of this. If nothing else, the moderates in the Republican party may have to give real consideration to whether they want to be in the same party with avowed racists. They've gotten away with looking the other way for far too long.
quote:I think we can be fairly confident that Robert Byrd will not be appointed to anything in a Hillary Clinton administration.
Originally posted by The Riv:
Don't ask Hillary about former Klansman and US Sen. Robert Byrd, though.
and raise you a .
quote:You're fortunate. Any attempt to seriously discuss the Southern Strategy or the degree to which present-day Republican electoral strategy relies on racist messaging will usually be derailed (or at least an attempt to derail such discussion will be made) by some right-wing apologist rolling out the corpse of Robert Byrd and the incredibly "relevant" observation that someone in the Democratic party was a Klansman in the 1940s.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've never even heard of Robert Byrd before, but there's an immediate and obvious difference between someone who has apologised for and recanted their racist views and someone who merrily continues to espouse them.
quote:I wish I shared your optimism. Quite a lot of the reaction I'm seeing isn't about the KKK and whether or not Trump is or is not a racist - it's a reaction to the media and Trump's refusal to play their constant gotcha game. A lot of people seem to like that while dismissing the media's interpretation about what his statements (or lack thereof) indicate about what Trump really thinks.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:It's "Klansman" - capital K.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't imagine a failure to bow to the pressure from some liberal elite media-types clammering for a politically-correct denounciation of a clansman or two will matter.
A failure to disavow the Klan will be judged as a Very Bad Thing not just by liberal elite media-types, but also by swing voters. MOTR people in places like Ohio, Virginia and Colorado will not vote for someone who seems to be just fine with having David Duke on his side. The Republican party is so fucked up this won't torpedo Trump's chances in the primaries, but he cannot run like this all year and expect to win in November.
quote:I'd tone down the inevitability dial a few notches, but I'm on this page right now. I think if I was an American, I'd be phoning the Sanders people and asking them to scratch my name of the list of volunteers, and then phoning Hilary's people and ask whether she's taking applications for interns yet. Then I'd start pumping iron. My Pecs have potential but my abs are a disaster.
Originally posted by The Riv:
There's way, way too much hand wringing re: Donald Trump. This has always been Hillary's election -- an elevation, really. Enjoy that. 1st female POTUS. Ok.
quote:One gets so fucking sick of people dragging out pre-Southern-strategy racist Democrats as if it prove ANY FUCKING THING AT ALL about the current Democratic Party.
Originally posted by The Riv:
Don't ask Hillary about former Klansman and US Sen. Robert Byrd, though.
quote:When you say "isn't about the KKK" or racism I think you mean "chooses to ignore the issue". It is pretty clear that Trump is very slippery on the issue, saying at one time he knows who Duke is, later on he doesn't know, and then he didn't disavow him because of an earpiece. That isn't "refusal to play gotcha" that is just being slippery and disingenuous.
Originally posted by saysay:
Quite a lot of the reaction I'm seeing isn't about the KKK and whether or not Trump is or is not a racist - it's a reaction to the media and Trump's refusal to play their constant gotcha game.
quote:Probably not. It's a thankless job. I've heard speculation that Christie is angling to be President Trump's Attorney General, though.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thanks to everyone who's posted links. Some good stuff there.
Something occurred to me, re Gov. Christie endorsing Trump: Is he hoping to be vice-president?
quote:Seriously. Worrying about what happens to Christie in a Trump administration is akin to fretting over mismatched table linens on the Titanic.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If Trump wins the presidential election, anyone who needs me for the next four years will find me under my duvet playing endless rounds of Bookworm and eating moose munch.
quote:You know, I think I'd probably vote for Trump over Cruz. I find the idea of either man becoming President horrifying, but I suspect Cruz might be worse.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Instead a concerted "anybody but Trump" movement is in train,
quote:To quote myself, "if God tells you to run in the Republican presidential primaries He's probably just doing it for the lulz"
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is dropping out. God told him to run; next time he'll remember to wait until God tells him he'll -win-.
quote:Yes. In many ways (perhaps intentionally, or is that just me being paranoid?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was thinking the same thing, LC. Trump would likely have difficulty with Republicans and Democrats. Cruz, as much as his fellows seem to dislike him on a personal level, is one of them.
) Trump is the rodeo clown distracting the media and the voters away from Cruz's only slightly less sociopathic positions. The real danger is that Cruz might look sane or reasonable when he's standing next to Trump.
quote:It is ridiculous. The Republican primary system is heavily weighted to favor the frontrunner. In some states any candidate getting less than 20% of the vote gets no delegates. You can see the problems that would cause if the ~60% of Republican voters who don't favor Trump is split among four candidates.
Originally posted by stonespring:
On TV someone was saying today that having multiple opponents to Trump in the GOP primary was actually helping take votes away from Trump so it is better than just having one anti-Trump candidate. That sounds ridiculous.
quote:The irony would be totally lost on Trump. But he would, I imagine, find nothing but admiration for Christie's ability to find ways to use any job, no matter how mundane, as first and foremost and opportunity to stick it to your enemies.
Originally posted by simontoad:
My wife read me a NY Times editorial in which Christie was said to be angling for the position of Transportation Secretary in a Trump Cabinet.
Oh, I laughed so hard.
quote:Whatever happened to the voice crying in the wilderness: "Cruz is not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real danger is that Cruz might look sane or reasonable when he's standing next to Trump.
quote:Yeah I don't understand that, mostly because I haven't appraised myself of the facts. Why can't Arnie be parachuted in? I understand he did a great job as The Gubernator. Please understand that I have not appraised myself of the facts, but heard something about CA renewables yesterday.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Whatever happened to the voice crying in the wilderness: "Cruz is not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real danger is that Cruz might look sane or reasonable when he's standing next to Trump.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I understand he did a great job as The Gubernator.
quote:My favorite line from the second article:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re anti-Trump voices at "National Review":
Wow. The irony. I wonder if they'll lose their jobs.
Back when Obama first ran, Christopher Buckley, son of NR founder William F. Buckley, Jr., wrote an article at the "Daily Beast": "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama".
NR fired him.
If you do a Web search on "Trump Christopher Buckley", you'll find lots of interesting stuff. Particularly, that 16 years ago, CB wrote a humorous article about Trump becoming president.
"Coming to terms with Trump is like an early-stage cancer diagnosis: Sixteen years ago I wrote Donald Trump’s inaugural address, as a joke. It’s not a joke any more."
quote:
But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.
quote:I still have the feeling that deep down, he has and he is.
la vie en rouge: I think a more rational human being than Trump would have figured out that he’s in way over his head, and have the good sense to be alarmed.
quote:He did that decades ago and has lived in a state of denial ever since. He's simply deluded, sense of destiny etc.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I still have the feeling that deep down, he has and he is.
la vie en rouge: I think a more rational human being than Trump would have figured out that he’s in way over his head, and have the good sense to be alarmed.
quote:As a Californian, I would have to agree, although that hasn't kept anyone from running for higher office. The first couple of years the Gubernator was a complete disaster-- came in opportunistically, ousting an effective incumbent, and attempting to rule heavy-handedly and unilaterally. He got slapped down hard by the electorate. But here's where he broke with Republican tradition: instead of doubling down on the alpha-male bullying... he listened. He started building coalitions and working with a rather liberal legislature. And things got done. He was definitely not our best governor, but he got better over time. Which in and of itself disqualifies him to the GOP-- his best days/ biggest accomplishments were when he was working with the Dems. Although you'd think he'd get some extra credit points for sticking it to a Kennedy (ex-wife Maria).
Originally posted by RuthW:
Schwarzenegger did have some good ideas. His climate change policy was forward-thinking, and his proposal to get rid of a bunch of the paid state commissions that do precisely nothing was a good one. But all in all, his election and re-election were not exactly California's finest hours.
quote:IMO, they have one reasonable person running: John Kasich. He will not be the nominee no matter what happens because he is too moderate for the Republican base to support. Just the fact that he expanded Medicaid in Ohio as part of that state's implementation of the Affordable Care Act dooms his campaign.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
I am not an American so can claim ignorance in this, but is it really too late for the Republican party to come up with a 'reasonable' candidate at this late hour? If Trump becomes President, I think we'll all be hiding under our bedclothes for 4 years.
quote:The Republican party has set up a system whereby it picks its presidential candidate. So far, the candidate that is preferred by Republican voters is Donald Trump. The fact that he's very disliked by the Republican elites (and a yoooge swath of non-Republican Americans) seems to be a failing of democracy. So far Donald Trump has abided by the electoral rules the Republican party has set out and emerged as the leader (though not yet the winner) of the Republican primary process. I can't think of anything more damaging to the Republican Party than for its leaders to suddenly declare that their voters "aren't ready for democracy" or some other self-serving euphemism and declare a do-over on the 2016 primaries (or just install some hand-picked puppet candidate). If you think Donald Trump and his supporters are in an ugly mood now, just think how they'd behave if they had proof positive that the fix was in and the system really was rigged against them.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
I am not an American so can claim ignorance in this, but is it really too late for the Republican party to come up with a 'reasonable' candidate at this late hour?
quote:There ya go. At this moment, today, the problem lies solely upon the GOP's plate, stinking and twitching. A few of us did our mite in the primaries to help them out of their awful dilemma. (I went and voted for Rubio!)
In short, the basic problem is that the Republican party has spent the last half century carefully cultivating a voter base that was built to respond to someone just like Trump. (Angry grievances against "the elites", suspicious of anyone with skin darker than a flounder filet, convinced anything that contradicts their prejudices is manufactured by the media. Is it any wonder they rallied around the King of the Birthers?) It's a little late to be worrying about the easily foreseeable consequences of this strategy now. [/QB]
quote:Yeah, for the most part as a diehard Dem I'm looking at this train wreck and just
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But until the GOP convention, we can only sit here and point out, kindly but in great detail, the many aspects of their fearful problem. And not giggle too much.
quote:Between now and Election Day I'll be visiting both Canada and England. I dread the questions I might be asked. (Maybe I need a large button to wear saying "I'm not voting for Trump.")
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Trump:
Albright: World 'looking at us as if we’ve lost our minds'
quote:But it might be a good opportunity to check out various locales, real estate prices, job opportunities, immigration requirements...
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Between now and Election Day I'll be visiting both Canada and England. I dread the questions I might be asked. (Maybe I need a large button to wear saying "I'm not voting for Trump.")
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Trump:
Albright: World 'looking at us as if we’ve lost our minds'
quote:Less than half the Republican convention delegates have been awarded so far, so no one can be mathematically eliminated from the race.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It is technically, mathematically not too late for Cruz or Rubio to garner enough votes to secure the nomination, but they have to win starting now. Starting March 15 the states are allowed to award all their delegates to the winner rather than dividing them proportionally.
quote:I wonder how many countries would recognize rights to asylum for US citizens fleeing Trump.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it might be a good opportunity to check out various locales, real estate prices, job opportunities, immigration requirements...
quote:Ah, tactical voting, familiar to anyone who's lived in Northern Ireland: you may have to cast a vote for a raving loony to avoid casting one for a terrorist.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... vote for whichever other candidate has the best chance of preventing Trump from becoming president. That is irrespective of how distasteful that may be ...
quote:In that case they had better get themselves and their party in order so that neither Trump nor anything similar rises to the top of the septic tank that is Republican presidential hopefuls next time around.
Originally posted by RuthW:
A lot of Republican elites are saying just that, Enoch. Not all, of course. But there are die-hard Republican movers and shakers who have declared that they are willing to lose the White House for at least 4 years and the Supreme Court for up to a generation because they think Trump is so dangerous. This Bloomberg View article with a large collection of quotes is a good illustration.
quote:... Not to mention the other voting principle in the Province: Vote early, vote often.
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:Ah, tactical voting, familiar to anyone who's lived in Northern Ireland: you may have to cast a vote for a raving loony to avoid casting one for a terrorist.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... vote for whichever other candidate has the best chance of preventing Trump from becoming president. That is irrespective of how distasteful that may be ...
Although in this case, it's rather more avoiding the raving loony ...
quote:Well I suppose that depends on how you read the constitution. There are those who read it literally and those who try to decypher its original intent (and for exegetical purposes some on the evangelical right can't be far short of canonising it).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The citizenship thing is hysterical. The constitution just says "natural born" citizen, which everyone has always assumed means "born in the USA" but in fact has never been tested or defined by the courts, ...
quote:d*** you molopata, now I can't not think about that and shall have to gouge the memory cells out of my gray matter with a sharpened spoon!
Originally posted by molopata:
And here's a desperate thought - maybe we could exclude Trump if he was a c-section baby. To think of it that way, I can't envision anyone with head his size being naturally born.
quote:Actually, in this case it's a matter of choosing between voting for the raving loon or voting for the sociopathic terrorist in order to avoid casting one for the raving, sociopathic terrorist loon.
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:Ah, tactical voting, familiar to anyone who's lived in Northern Ireland: you may have to cast a vote for a raving loony to avoid casting one for a terrorist.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... vote for whichever other candidate has the best chance of preventing Trump from becoming president. That is irrespective of how distasteful that may be ...
Although in this case, it's rather more avoiding the raving loony ...
quote:That's a longer one than the Mexico wall.
Brenda Clough: If I were Canada I would threaten to build a wall. Which, of course, the USA will have to pay for.
quote:Can't imagine many European nations being thrilled. We’re already having enough trouble deciding what to do about all the Syrians
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I wonder how many countries would recognize rights to asylum for US citizens fleeing Trump.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it might be a good opportunity to check out various locales, real estate prices, job opportunities, immigration requirements...
.quote:Cape Breton is putting out the welcome mat.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Can't imagine many European nations being thrilled. We’re already having enough trouble deciding what to do about all the Syrians
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I wonder how many countries would recognize rights to asylum for US citizens fleeing Trump.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it might be a good opportunity to check out various locales, real estate prices, job opportunities, immigration requirements...
(Apparently there was a big spike the other night in people searching Google for “how to move to Canada”.)
quote:Expect to repeatedly see clips of Donald Trump's endorsement of Mitt Romney and Romney's enthusiastic acceptance of that endorsement over the next week or so.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mitt Romney's speech denouncing Trump is important, because the previous standard bearer is always expected to line up and support the new one. Romney has staked out a position he will not be able to credibly retrieve later on - he has planted his flag, much as Chris Christie has. My respect for him has shot up.
quote:And here's something for all those who thought the Gay Agenda™ would Destroy America. Who knew they were so insidious?
As with most of the of the speech, the problem isn’t so much that the criticism is wrong as that it applies equally to all of Trump’s rivals for the nomination. Perhaps this is the real problem.
quote:Thanks for that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
...
If they don't want Trump to be the nominee, they will either have to somehow get someone else elected or they will have to be willing to sacrifice their chances of winning the White House and possibly lose the Senate. There are decent, good people with sincere faith in conservative political principles who have very hard choices to make.
...
quote:A nice quote provided at the end of this article I came across while reading the linked article above:
Originally posted by stonespring:
3. The fact that two political commentators got into a debate about the KKK live on the air on CNN as if there were any debate to be had on that issue is sickening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/arts/television/cnn-commentators-argue-over-trump-and-the-ku-klux-klan.html?hp&action=click &pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
quote:
... there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
quote:This isn't a new phenomenon, either. My mother was a life-long Republican, but freely admitted that the party hadn't put forward a presidential candidate she felt she could vote for with a clean conscience since Ike.
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are decent, good people with sincere faith in conservative political principles who have very hard choices to make.
quote:With me, it's safe to assume I'm mostly being silly or stupid.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
I have a hard time knowing whether you're serious or sarcastic. In case you're serious:
The Arnold can't be president, because he wasn't born a citizen. (Some bozos in Congress wanted to change the law, so that he could run. Fortunately, that didn't get very far.)
As to his time governing my state: the kindest thing I can say is that opinions vary, and mine are very negative.
quote:No-- his situation is pretty much the reverse of anchor baby.
Originally posted by simontoad:
For instance, I'm pretty sure what I really wanted to know in the post which you responded to was whether Ted Cruz was an anchor baby, but I clearly forgot that early on in the drafting process.
I repeat: Is Ted Cruz an anchor baby?
quote:Understand, I know people who are more than just good who have conservative political principals. However, I maintain that it is only with cognitive dissonance that one can have faith in conservative politics and still be good.
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are decent, good people with sincere faith in conservative political principles who have very hard choices to make.
quote:There is already a comedy video for that. As part of Canada's campaign to be elected US President.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I were Canada I would threaten to build a wall. Which, of course, the USA will have to pay for.
quote:I didn't say conservative politics - I said conservative principles. Stuff Russell Kirk believed in.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Understand, I know people who are more than just good who have conservative political principals. However, I maintain that it is only with cognitive dissonance that one can have faith in conservative politics and still be good.
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are decent, good people with sincere faith in conservative political principles who have very hard choices to make.
quote:Many good people can and do believe in these principles. These people are not crazy, they're not stupid, and they're not bad. Hell, except for the thing about property, I think there is a lot of good thinking in what Kirk believed in.
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
...
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
...
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. ... that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary.
...
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
...
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.
...
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. ... Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. ... To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things.
...
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. ... Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.
...
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, [just] as they oppose involuntary collectivism. ... In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.
...
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human Passions.
...
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
quote:I actually think this process will be quite hard to do - as they'll have to change the way they have operated in the last few years.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In that case they had better get themselves and their party in order so that neither Trump nor anything similar rises to the top of the septic tank that is Republican presidential hopefuls next time around.
It won't happen if they just sit on their asses and their assets.
quote:"Deadening egalitarianism." That tells me all I have to know about these conservative principles.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I said conservative principles. <snip>
quote:I don't know much about the Republicans, but in a UK context, this one made me fall off my chair laughing. The Conservatives have done anything but that, in fact, they rip up the rule book, if it harms the profits of banks and big business.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
quote:My thoughts exactly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:"Deadening egalitarianism." That tells me all I have to know about these conservative principles.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I said conservative principles. <snip>
quote:Actual headline on CNN right now: Donald Trump defends size of his penis.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, then there was last night's debate.
After months of the metaphorical d*** swinging, they decided to go literal:
NWS moments from a so-called "presidential" debate.
quote:Given Kirk's opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and his support of South African Apartheid, that seems like an overly narrow assumption of his support for inegalitarian systems. It seems far more likely that his endorsement of inegalitarianism was broad enough to include a certain amount of racial discrimination.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, pull just two words out of the whole speech. That's an honest method of argument that will surely be appreciated by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
The phrase is "deadening egalitarianism of radical systems." I would bet Kirk had Mao's bullshit in mind, and none of us here espouses the notion that the cultural elite need to be sent to re-education camps.
quote:Bad week to take a job as fact-checker at Politifact.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Actual headline on CNN right now: Donald Trump defends size of his penis.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, then there was last night's debate.
After months of the metaphorical d*** swinging, they decided to go literal:
NWS moments from a so-called "presidential" debate.
quote:Has he bought a '74 Dodge Charger?
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Donald Trump defends size of his penis.
quote:Let's hope that it's just a formula that will be open for public inspection.
quetzalcoatl: I suppose that a formula will soon be available for public inspection:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is US Presidential-standards of debate? The legacy of the founding fathers, the spirit of 76... the vision of Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson... it comes down to a guy who will get into arguing about penis size?
quote:I'm not saying this whole thing isn't crude and juvenile, just that you may be over-stating the high-minded legacy of America's founders.
Originally posted by the Thomas Jefferson campaign, describing Presidential rival John Adams:
A hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
quote:Given that the platform of the GOP seems to be "s**** the working class" I suppose it's appropriate we know what we're getting into...or, er... vice-versa.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that a formula will soon be available for public inspection: length x girth = quantum solace.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is US Presidential-standards of debate? The legacy of the founding fathers, the spirit of 76... the vision of Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson... it comes down to a guy who will get into arguing about penis size?
quote:
Originally posted by the Thomas Jefferson campaign, describing Presidential rival John Adams:
A hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
quote:Yes, fair point. Although it still seems rather more eloquent and - maybe not high-minded but at least minded compared with Trump.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not saying this whole thing isn't crude and juvenile, just that you may be over-stating the high-minded legacy of America's founders.
quote:I think that sensible conservatives who do not have to worry about running for office, like Colin Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, and others, need to not only denounce Trump, Cruz, et al, but offer a different vision of what it means to be conservative. Right now they just seem to be denouncing.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, pull just two words out of the whole speech. That's an honest method of argument that will surely be appreciated by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
The phrase is "deadening egalitarianism of radical systems." I would bet Kirk had Mao's bullshit in mind, and none of us here espouses the notion that the cultural elite need to be sent to re-education camps. As a liberal, I want an egalitarian society. But I am never going to convince a conservative to join with me in working for that if I give no credence to what he or she sees as the senseless and potentially dangerous notion that everyone should get a trophy when some worked a lot harder and played the game better.
quote:That, a few bottles of vodka and a bag of Monster Munch and you have a party.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Tape measures can be fudged. Get me a stainless steel foot ruler and an impartial panel of judges. Oh, and a bowl of ice, some calipers, and half a dozen pairs of disposable plastic salad tongs.
quote:Don't forget several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:That, a few bottles of vodka and a bag of Monster Munch and you have a party.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Tape measures can be fudged. Get me a stainless steel foot ruler and an impartial panel of judges. Oh, and a bowl of ice, some calipers, and half a dozen pairs of disposable plastic salad tongs.
quote:I can see them running out into the night screaming 'It's alive!'
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I do believe even Fox News have taken fright now.
quote:Unfortunately, its oh so much easier to think the other side is evil and our side is the only one who cares and really knows what is going on.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, pull just two words out of the whole speech. That's an honest method of argument that will surely be appreciated by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
quote:Ur assumption that I am
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's lovely to be nuanced and believe that both sides have decent people. But in this case, as per Brenda's link above, the Republican candidates are revolting even Republican voters.
So, no. Sorry. Your entire slate consists of genuinely terrible people.
quote:Yes, they can. But it's an easy cop out. Those of us who have listened - including Republican voters - have come to the conclusion that they're all crock.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Some people on the left, however that is defined, can be just as pigheadedly dismissive of the other side without bothering to actually listen.
quote:And therein lies Trump's strategy to get the Mexicans to build a wall. They'll gladly do so and pay for it, in order to keep the Americans out when these five countries change their immigration policies in response to being inundated. If the border weren't so long, the Canadians would probably build all wall too.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"5 countries that will welcome you if Trump becomes president" (Mashable). Svalbard looks interesting. As does New Zealand. During Dubya's years, they had a tourism campaign here in SF.
quote:Unfortunately for the GOP, the rank and file are disappointed in their candidates this year.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Unfortunately, its oh so much easier to think the other side is evil and our side is the only one who cares and really knows what is going on.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, pull just two words out of the whole speech. That's an honest method of argument that will surely be appreciated by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
quote:Can be? This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid. Even when Ruth posted a very good and rational summary of conservative principles, the only direct response was a two-word snip of her post and a dismissive one-liner.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Some people on the left, however that is defined, can be just as pigheadedly dismissive of the other side without bothering to actually listen.
quote:What exactly are we required to do? Trump has mostly been shouting incoherent stuff. The little that can be made sense of is disastrous. The last time he spoke in public, it was mostly about the size of his penis. Do you want us to do a full analysis of that?
Marvin the Martian: Can be? This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid.
quote:That's hardly accurate, Marvin. Trump, if not his supporters, has for the most part, been described as evil and stupid.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Can be? This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid. Even when Ruth posted a very good and rational summary of conservative principles, the only direct response was a two-word snip of her post and a dismissive one-liner.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Some people on the left, however that is defined, can be just as pigheadedly dismissive of the other side without bothering to actually listen.
quote:We all get that we appear to be engaging in everything we've decried in the last few elections and the sarcastic "thanks, Obama" meme. But the fact of the matter is, no matter how I've tried (and I have) to find some spark of good or even rationality or even selfish good of the country in Trump's policies, I just can't. Honestly, I do find him evil. There's just no other words for it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Can be? This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Some people on the left, however that is defined, can be just as pigheadedly dismissive of the other side without bothering to actually listen.
quote:1) What have the conservative principles in Ruth's statement got to do with Donald Trump? Or the leadership of the Republican Party? Or the leadership of the modern UK Conservative Party for that matter?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid. Even when Ruth posted a very good and rational summary of conservative principles, the only direct response was a two-word snip of her post and a dismissive one-liner.
quote:Trump bashing isn't about conservative vs. liberal: he doesn't have enough principles to warrant either label. His supporters are Republican and therefore conservative only because he has decided to run as a Republican, but the man himself is a complete outlier as far as politics go.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Can be? This whole thread has been dominated by those who pigheadedly dismiss Trump and his supporters as either evil or stupid. Even when Ruth posted a very good and rational summary of conservative principles, the only direct response was a two-word snip of her post and a dismissive one-liner.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Some people on the left, however that is defined, can be just as pigheadedly dismissive of the other side without bothering to actually listen.
quote:Thanks for that, but it really doesn't clear anything up for me. The article really just quotes Trump supporters as pissed off at Romney for telling them not to vote for him. But there's nothing in there to explain why they want to vote for him in the first place, so again, nothing to help me understand this group of people or what is motivating them.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and someone said upthread that they had not met any supporters of Trump. Here is a long piece with many interviews of Trump voters. With a good deal of extra stick for the unlucky Mitt Romney.
quote:I know a couple of people who are Trump supporters. Neither is evil; both have a collection of engineering/science degrees (that doesn't necessarily exempt "stupid" but it constrains you to have only particular kinds of stupidity.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Are his supporters evil or stupid? I don't know. [..] I've yet to meet anyone even online who has admitted to being a Trump supporter.
quote:Unless one is standing in Canada, where he most definitely was an anchor baby and both his parents gained Canadian citizenship. Thankfully, we're now free of junior.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:No-- his situation is pretty much the reverse of anchor baby.
Originally posted by simontoad:
For instance, I'm pretty sure what I really wanted to know in the post which you responded to was whether Ted Cruz was an anchor baby, but I clearly forgot that early on in the drafting process.
I repeat: Is Ted Cruz an anchor baby?
quote:Ah, dang, I didn't think of that. Now I'll be up all night with a case of the "if only..."s...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Unless one is standing in Canada, where he most definitely was an anchor baby and both his parents gained Canadian citizenship. Thankfully, we're now free of junior.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:No-- his situation is pretty much the reverse of anchor baby.
Originally posted by simontoad:
For instance, I'm pretty sure what I really wanted to know in the post which you responded to was whether Ted Cruz was an anchor baby, but I clearly forgot that early on in the drafting process.
I repeat: Is Ted Cruz an anchor baby?
quote:Yes. Although basically our entire immigration system is set up that way to prioritize some countries over others on similarly arcane/politically motivated rationale, as well as to prioritize wealthy immigrants over poor immigrants.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And I really wish someone would challenge Cruz or Rubio to defend the privileged status of Cubans when it comes to entering the USA illegally.
quote:I expect him to try to move to the left of Hilary once he's nominated.
molopata: Expect Trump to move to the centre soon
quote:According to the New York Times, Clinton has 663 pledged delegates and 458 super delegates; Sanders has 457 pledged delegates and 22 super delegates. A total of 2,383 is needed to win the nomination.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Looks like Sanders won another two primaries, or rather, one primary and one caucus. Nebraska and Kansas. Not sure how many delegates that gets him though.
quote:There is an excellent discussion of the roots of Trumpism in the dissatisfaction of white working class people who first left the Democratic party when it seemed the Democrats had more interest in catering to black voters and have since found that the Republicans aren't doing anything for them either: Washington Post.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But at this point, unable to find even a single Trump supporter (or at least one who'll admit to it) in the very very conservative evangelical circles I run in, I honestly can say, even with every exercise of empathy and openness I can muster, I just don't get it.
quote:And I'm not sure Sanders can do anything about the racial component. He is certainly not going to come out in favor of border walls or immigration bans (let alone physically harming people at rallies -- I swear one tries to avoid the comparisons, but Nuremberg comes to mind).
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, but that's you (and me). Sanders hasn't figured out how to reach people who didn't go to college. And he isn't appealing to the racial resentment many of them feel. The things that make us recoil from Trump are the things they find attractive.
quote:Then there was the Trump rally where he asked everyone to raise their right hands and swear to vote for him. The visuals were exactly what you'd expect. If the Trump campaign wants to avoid comparisons to the Nuremberg rallies, they have to stop doing stuff like that.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And I'm not sure Sanders can do anything about the racial component. He is certainly not going to come out in favor of border walls or immigration bans (let alone physically harming people at rallies -- I swear one tries to avoid the comparisons, but Nuremberg comes to mind).
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by mousethief:
So that leaves Bernie in the cold with the people who should be his natural allies -- people to whom "the system" has given the deep shaft. How to disabuse these people of the mistaken idea that their problems are caused by immigrants and brown people? I do not know. One is reminded of the adage, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason."
quote:Trump supporters come in many stripes but the core of them are people who, even if they are not the worst off economically in this country, are extremely disillusioned, disoriented, and angry because of how their lives and their sense of their place in the world has gone counter to what they were raised to expect. These are people who grew up thinking that success was not guaranteed if you worked hard but that life overall would probably be better for them then it was for their parents and that it would be better for their children than it was for them.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Thanks for that, but it really doesn't clear anything up for me. The article really just quotes Trump supporters as pissed off at Romney for telling them not to vote for him. But there's nothing in there to explain why they want to vote for him in the first place, so again, nothing to help me understand this group of people or what is motivating them.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and someone said upthread that they had not met any supporters of Trump. Here is a long piece with many interviews of Trump voters. With a good deal of extra stick for the unlucky Mitt Romney.
I find it so curious that he is doing so well with the electorate, yet I honestly don't know a single person in real life or among online friends who has admitted to supporting him. Again, I am almost completely immersed in con-evo culture: I pastor an evangelical church, teach at an evangelical seminary, and worship frequently at a church described by a mystery worshipper as the happy clappiest of all the happy clappy churches. Almost all my colleagues, students, and friends are con-evos. Yet out of all of them-- no Trump supporters. Not ONE. Again, lots of Carson supporters, some Cruz and Rubio--but no Trump. Obviously there ARE Trump supporters-- millions of them-- but where? Who are they? What drives them? Still a mystery to me.
quote:I forgot to mention above that Trump is likely to perform better in the Eastern part of the Rust Belt (especially parts of Upstate New York like Buffalo) than in the Midwest, where his brash attitude is a bit more "foreign" than it is in the Northeast or even in the South.
Oh, and as a last note, although much has been said about Trump's support in the Deep South, his strongest supporters are probably in the Rust Belt of former manufacturing towns in the Great Lakes area, Upstate New York, and Central and Western Pennsylvania. Trump does well among Evangelicals, but much less so among the kinds of Evangelicals that frequently attend church and agree with a rigidly orthodox set of doctrines on faith and morals. That latter group, along with Tea Party ideologues, have been the strongest supporters of Cruz and Carson.
quote:Type "resident" into the first text entry box on this Federal Election Commission page and hit the "Get Listing" button to see who else is registered.
Though many social media users have called an FEC filing by Romney a “sure” bet that he is running for president, it bears mentioning that practically anyone can file with the FEC without actually running. In fact, this year there is filings for Abraham Lincoln for President 2016, Dat Fat A$$, Syndeys Voluptious Buttocks and Don’t Vote For Trump.
quote:Doesn't the fact that he can't seem to get very many people to vote for him indicate he's not a good candidate for winning the Presidency for the Republicans? What exactly are you basing his electoral chances on?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If the GOP seriously wants the White House back, they have to nominate John Kasich. Unfortunately for them, he's in last place, likely because he hasn't bragged about the size of his dick. The GOP will get the nominee they deserve.
quote:Presumably how he would do in the general election. If Hillary wins the Dem nod, there will be disenfranchised Sanders voters, independents, swing voters, etc in play.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Doesn't the fact that he can't seem to get very many people to vote for him indicate he's not a good candidate for winning the Presidency for the Republicans? What exactly are you basing his electoral chances on?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If the GOP seriously wants the White House back, they have to nominate John Kasich. Unfortunately for them, he's in last place, likely because he hasn't bragged about the size of his dick. The GOP will get the nominee they deserve.
quote:In a general? I can't believe we've sunk that low yet.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Is he sure that Trump won't win? Because I'm not.
quote:The way the American electoral system is set up any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency. That being said, on the face of it Donald Trump seems like a particularly weak general election candidate.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Is he sure that Trump won't win? Because I'm not.
quote:This is common sense and what I think is most likely, too. But this election has been so unpredictable and what I have thought would happen from the beginning has so often been wrong.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My son, a young but passionate political observer, says that we're done. All hail our next president, Hillary Clinton, because there is now no way forward for the GOP. I have a good imagination, and generated some more creative scenarios -- Romney as savior? Condi Rice or Colin Powell steps up to the plate? Ronald Reagan rises from his coffin when they open the grave to inter Nancy? But he says it's over. He is no prophet (would a real soothsayer not have a girlfriend, his mother queries acerbically? Do his laundry only once a quarter?) but in some things he is very accurate.
quote:I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment. Among Democrats there's a good deal of satisfaction with the accomplishments of the incumbent president. Candidates seem to be competing to see who can best position themselves as Obama's legitimate successor. Clinton and Sanders seem to be succeeding at this, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee took a different tack. The results speak for themselves.
Originally posted by stonespring:
As hard as it is for liberals like me who live in a community of other liberals to believe, there is a wave of discontent at 8 years of a Democratic Presidency that is similar to the wave of discontent in 2008 at 8 years of a GOP presidency.
quote:Indeed. In my experience the discontent is at the Republicans in Congress whose primary focus for the last 8 years was not to obstruct everything possible.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment. Among Democrats there's a good deal of satisfaction with the accomplishments of the incumbent president.
Originally posted by stonespring:
As hard as it is for liberals like me who live in a community of other liberals to believe, there is a wave of discontent at 8 years of a Democratic Presidency that is similar to the wave of discontent in 2008 at 8 years of a GOP presidency.
quote:Trump reveals what is, what has not changed. The other bad thing about Hilary becoming president is that she is very much part of the establishment that is very much part of the problem with American politics.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think (hope?) Trump probably is unelectable by the American public at large.
It does indeed look like a shoo-in for Hillary Clinton if he gets the nomination. Nonetheless, as Fred Clark points out on slacktivist, this should by no means be celebrated by Democrats as a good thing, because of the way that America is being changed for the worse by Trump’s campaign.
quote:Illusion is powerful. Trump is nothing but illusion, even his populism is based on illusion.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that she will win because the odds of real change were ever illusory. Both sides have a populist candidate that they hope will lead them to change, but I would agree that neither candidate will be electable, and I rather doubt either candidate could get their dreams past Congress if they were elected.
quote:A lot of liberal Democrats were sharing memes well before 9/11 and the Iraq War of George W. Bush as a chimpanzee and all kinds of baseless rumors of the homosexual hijinks he must have engaged in as a cheerleader, as an inductee and member of Skull and Bones, or in one of his drunk or high hazes. The War in Iraq only amplified the rabid hatred against him on the left. I took part in it. The knee-jerk hatred of Obama was stronger earlier in his presidency than it was with George W. Bush and it definitely has an uglier racist component but as with obstructionism in Congress a lot of the things that the GOP has done against Obama was done first by the Democrats, albeit to a lesser degree.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment. Among Democrats there's a good deal of satisfaction with the accomplishments of the incumbent president. Candidates seem to be competing to see who can best position themselves as Obama's legitimate successor. Clinton and Sanders seem to be succeeding at this, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee took a different tack. The results speak for themselves.
Originally posted by stonespring:
As hard as it is for liberals like me who live in a community of other liberals to believe, there is a wave of discontent at 8 years of a Democratic Presidency that is similar to the wave of discontent in 2008 at 8 years of a GOP presidency.
Republicans, on the other hand, aren't feeling "a wave of discontent at 8 years of a Democratic Presidency". They felt that wave of discontent starting around 12:01 pm (Eastern Standard Time) on January 20, 2009. I'm not sure they're any more discontented with the Obama administration now than they were on November 6, 2012, and that amount of discontent wasn't enough to swing things in their favor then.
quote:So far Trump hasn't been doing well with the young. Voters under 30 are his weakest group of support in every primary or caucus entrance/exit poll I've seen. In many states they're the only age group to go for someone other than Trump.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
One thing I'm curious about is how a Clinton-Trump line-up would play out with the youth. The youth are mostly voting Democratic, but I'm not ruling out that Trump's approach may resonate with a number of them. And Clinton hasn't been doing well with the youth in the primaries.
quote:Okay thank you, I hadn't analysed it that well. I guess that's a bit of a relief. Still, it would be good if Clinton for example would choose a running mate who would do well with the youth.
Crœsos: So far Trump hasn't been doing well with the young. Voters under 30 are his weakest group of support in every primary or caucus entrance/exit poll I've seen. In many states they're the only age group to go for someone other than Trump.
quote:I'm still dreaming of Elizabeth Warren (for either Clinton or Sanders...)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Okay thank you, I hadn't analysed it that well. I guess that's a bit of a relief. Still, it would be good if Clinton for example would choose a running mate who would do well with the youth.
Crœsos: So far Trump hasn't been doing well with the young. Voters under 30 are his weakest group of support in every primary or caucus entrance/exit poll I've seen. In many states they're the only age group to go for someone other than Trump.
quote:Yes definitely. The big problem is that as vice president she perhaps would have less influence than she does now.
cliffdweller: I'm still dreaming of Elizabeth Warren (for either Clinton or Sanders...)
quote:She can do far more good in the Senate, especially if the Democrats take it back.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm still dreaming of Elizabeth Warren (for either Clinton or Sanders...)
quote:Or to put it in the same pithy terms of one Senator being considered for the position "I'd rather have a vote than a gavel".
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Yes definitely. The big problem is that as vice president she perhaps would have less influence than she does now.
cliffdweller: I'm still dreaming of Elizabeth Warren (for either Clinton or Sanders...)
quote:It goes on from there, but why do people who claim to like Elizabeth Warren want to punish her with the Vice Presidency?
Nothing suggests the shallowness of most people’s political analysis, even well-informed people, then how they talk about the vice-presidency. Why do people see a largely useless position, barring a president’s death, as a place to put a completely capable and even great political figure, just because they like them? In other words, Elizabeth Warren as Vice-President would be an absolutely terrible idea. Even assuming she wanted it, why would she leave the Senate, where she would be a lot more powerful?
quote:Unfortunately, I don't think Gabby Giffords is physically up to it, at least not yet.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point of balancing the ticket. One female from a Northeastern Democratic state does not need a second one beside her. Hillary should select someone from the Midwest or West. Gabrielle Giffords would be ideal, or Bill Richardson or Julian Castro.
quote:I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but the demographics of the Northerners who voted for George Wallace as a third party candidate in 1968 are similar to the "Reagan Democrats" who voted for the GOP at least for president in 1980 and 1984, and also to the demographics of the current supporters of Trump.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have a different worry. I remember George Wallace. Gun laws have been gutted, since that day. I live in an open-carry state, and it is profoundly depressing.
The man is a excrescence upon the face of politics, we may agree. I would not trust him to walk my dog, never mind the nuclear button. My cat would make a better President. Nevertheless, I am very glad that Donald Trump has Secret Service protection, and I am sure he can afford the very best in Kevlar linings for his bespoke suits.
quote:I'm almost certain BC is referring to the assassination attempt than ended his 1972 presidential campaign and left him partially paralyzed.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but the demographics of the Northerners who voted for George Wallace as a third party candidate in 1968 are similar to the "Reagan Democrats" who voted for the GOP at least for president in 1980 and 1984, and also to the demographics of the current supporters of Trump.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have a different worry. I remember George Wallace. Gun laws have been gutted, since that day. I live in an open-carry state, and it is profoundly depressing.
The man is a excrescence upon the face of politics, we may agree. I would not trust him to walk my dog, never mind the nuclear button. My cat would make a better President. Nevertheless, I am very glad that Donald Trump has Secret Service protection, and I am sure he can afford the very best in Kevlar linings for his bespoke suits.
quote:A simple solution - how about Joe Biden for VP? There is nothing to prevent it - the 22nd amendment only applies to the President, not the Vice President.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
perhaps someone with Joe Biden's skills and likability should be her running mate. Unfortunately, I can't think of anybody except Joe Biden.
quote:It is true that such a perception exists, but if that article is truly representative, it represents racism and fear more than ant other motive.
Originally posted by deano:
An interesting little article from the US version of the Guardian website...
'Not even my wife knows': secret Donald Trump voters speak out
People who would have voted for Sanders will vote Trump, and other nasty little surprises for anti-Trump voters.
None of it comes as any surprise to me. It fits what I said upthread about the current political machine being percieved as deadlocked and unable to fix itself or the problems these people are - or believe they are - facing.
quote:This.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's an element of rage against the machine, isn't there, in Trumpism? Hillary is seen as part of the machine, I would think, but Trump is selling the illusion that he isn't.
quote:For those with less imagination you can actually watch the scene BC describes thanks to the miracle of the internet. [Content Warning: attempted assassinations are violent!]
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My imagination is too good. I can see it now, the rope line outside a WalMart in some crappy town in the Midwest or South. The Trumpian handshakes, as the crowd waves the "Make America Great Again" placards. The gun, pulled out from a waistband under a jacket. The screams and pandemonium, the jerking camera shot suddenly taking in the sky as the camera holder falls to the pavement for cover.
quote:A US friend of mine said jokingly, that Trump might position himself to the left of Hillary. Of course, there is the racism and so on, but I wonder if on some economic issues Trump could do that. Whether he would actually carry it out is another matter.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:This.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's an element of rage against the machine, isn't there, in Trumpism? Hillary is seen as part of the machine, I would think, but Trump is selling the illusion that he isn't.
It is all illusion. Trump is seen as an maverick because, like Sanders, he has no outside funding-- he's not beholden to any powerful, enfranchised special interests. The difference of course is that Trump IS a powerful, enfranchised special interest-- he's simply eliminated the middle man.
quote:That actually sounds like a good-case scenario. Trump is IMHO not part of the machine. In fact, he has always worked against the system for his own personal gain as far as the system will let him - and that has got him quite far. But if he were US-president, then the world's his oyster, and there is little to restrain a national that spends nearly half the world budget on arms and is beholden to this kind of monster. The world system of international trade and treaties is quite a fragile one and dependent on countries like the US being responsible and constructive members of the community. If it's lead disrespects this and the US turns truly bad, then the outlook could be very, very grim for us all.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's an element of rage against the machine, isn't there, in Trumpism? Hillary is seen as part of the machine, I would think, but Trump is selling the illusion that he isn't. But candidates often do this, and then once elected, revert back.
quote:More a least bad. Like having an unnecessary limb amputation being done with a semi-clean and sorta sharp blade instead of a blunt rock.
Originally posted by molopata:
That actually sounds like a good-case scenario.
quote:Loot the country of what exactly?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All his life the Donald has devoted every waking moment to extolling himself and enriching himself. If we hand him the presidency, can we believe he will change? He will loot the country and leave us holding the bag.
quote:I don't know about Brenda, but I don't think I've particularly noticed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Loot the country of what exactly?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All his life the Donald has devoted every waking moment to extolling himself and enriching himself. If we hand him the presidency, can we believe he will change? He will loot the country and leave us holding the bag.
In case you hadn't noticed, the candidates you have blindly supported all your life have already looted the country.
quote:Resilient or not, I am appalled how G.W. & his merry men destabilised the world. I think Trump has the capacity to make me think fondly of the Bush years, just as Obama has managed to restore a minimal degree of respectability for the US in international politics. However, voting Ahmedinejad, er, ... I mean Cruz, could be similarly bad or worse.
Originally posted by simontoad:
If Trump becomes President, he will not have untrammeled power. The USA has a plethora of strong institutions that will check any unusual ambition on his part. He may behave corruptly, but I'm pretty sure Americans have seen this behavior in its high officials before.
So lets keep it real about Trump. He's a scary bastard; he has no sense of public duty; he will make a terrible President. But the USA is a resilient place, with resilient institutions and many very sensible people.
quote:As long as he become naturalised he can enter political life and might even become Prime Minister. There's no "native-born Australian" restriction. But would he pass the character test for naturalisation?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
Then, of course, we should send Trump down to you. I'm sure that Australia "is a resilient place, with resilient institutions and many very sensible people".
quote:The politicians have so changed the tax code, employment laws, etc., that the 0.1% are doing a find job of looting the country, taking more and more wealth out of the country and into their own hands. So, yeah, I think that's a fair accusation.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
What's your best example of how politicians have so looted the country that there's now nothing left to loot?
quote:This always bugs me, but no one in Germany in the early 1930s was carting around wheelbarrows full of cash to buy basic needs either. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to conflate the hyperinflation of 1921-1923 with the effects of the Great Depression nearly ten years later. I suspect part of this is because those pictures of all those bales of cash are evocative while people not having jobs is hard to photograph, but I suspect there's a deliberate angle to this as well.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The second, and this is really important, the USA is not the Weimar Republic. People in the USA are not starving because of massive inflation, the US economy is working effectively. People may have concerns around equity, but nobody is having to take large amounts of cash to the bakery to buy their daily bread. Germany in 1932 . . .
quote:I understood that it's the reverse, with an important caveat. In the Weimar economy, the very poor were living from hand to mouth anyway. The very rich either made money from land or from industrial manufacture. Their wealth was only indirectly affected, especially the landowners. It was the only moderately wealthy - the middle-classes (European sense) whose investments were in the form of cash that lost.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it comes down to who gets hurt in each type of financial crisis. Inflation largely effects the very rich and the very poor. Anyone who makes their money from cash return on investments or by collecting the interest on loans will see the value of their portfolios evaporate, as will anyone living on a fixed pension.
quote:Sort of. It depended on whether you were a rich landholder or a rich banker. The basic rule is that in periods of high inflation you need to avoid any cash-denominated holdings. As with any change of economic situation there are winners and losers. In a period of high inflation, particularly in an era before anyone had invented the adjustable-rate loan, the winners are debtors and the losers are creditors. So if you were a landholder you were okay, since the value of your land would inflate at more or less the same rate as everything else in the economy. (Though it should be noted that if you rented your land to someone else it could be problematic since the rent specified in the lease would probably be worthless by the end of the leasing period.) If you were a landowner with a mortgage you really cleaned up, since your mortgage could be easily paid off with what was, in the newly inflated currency, essentially pocket change. On the other hand if you were a banker holding that mortgage you were suddenly holding a document that was now worth pocket change.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I understood that it's the reverse, with an important caveat. In the Weimar economy, the very poor were living from hand to mouth anyway. The very rich either made money from land or from industrial manufacture. Their wealth was only indirectly affected, especially the landowners. It was the only moderately wealthy - the middle-classes (European sense) whose investments were in the form of cash that lost.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it comes down to who gets hurt in each type of financial crisis. Inflation largely effects the very rich and the very poor. Anyone who makes their money from cash return on investments or by collecting the interest on loans will see the value of their portfolios evaporate, as will anyone living on a fixed pension.
quote:I think this is true in the modern world, certainly as far as the rich go and in the Atlantic world.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Since the rich tend to be creditors and the middle-class tend to be debtors, high inflation is typically bad for the former and not too bad for the latter. The very poor, who tend to live on fixed pensions or other fixed-value assets, are in a similar situation to creditors.
quote:The early twentieth century wasn't the financial dark ages. The long-term, fixed rate mortgage had existed for centuries at that point. In 1913 total mortgages in Germany were worth $10 billion in contemporary U.S. dollars. For reference, the GDP of the United States in 1913 was approximately $40 billion. (This figure is approximate because reliable U.S. GDP data only goes back to 1929, so that's more an "order of magnitude" type of figure than a definitive one.) So debts of the type under discussion existed and were quite sizable by the economic standards of the day.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think this is true in the modern world, certainly as far as the rich go and in the Atlantic world.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Since the rich tend to be creditors and the middle-class tend to be debtors, high inflation is typically bad for the former and not too bad for the latter. The very poor, who tend to live on fixed pensions or other fixed-value assets, are in a similar situation to creditors.
I feel less sure that it applies in the early twentieth century, and to Bismarck's Germany.
quote:History quibbles aside, I thank you for that.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I hate Donald Trump. I have hated him and laughed at him for as long as I have registered his existence. He is a terrible bloke. I think I might have called him a Nazi a few times.
At this point, however, I think it is sensible to step back, because I think sections of the serious media is about to go into anti-trump hyperdrive. It's important to do this to maintain perspective.
The first thing to note is that Trump is not Hitler, he is just a naughty little boy. The second, and this is really important, the USA is not the Weimar Republic. People in the USA are not starving because of massive inflation, the US economy is working effectively. People may have concerns around equity, but nobody is having to take large amounts of cash to the bakery to buy their daily bread. Germany in 1932 was a beaten power, denuded of its army and industrial strength. The USA remains at the height of its power and influence.
If Trump becomes President, he will not have untrammeled power. The USA has a plethora of strong institutions that will check any unusual ambition on his part. He may behave corruptly, but I'm pretty sure Americans have seen this behavior in its high officials before.
So lets keep it real about Trump. He's a scary bastard; he has no sense of public duty; he will make a terrible President. But the USA is a resilient place, with resilient institutions and many very sensible people.
quote:Thanks, mousethief, but I was specifically interested in romanlion's opinions on this point; I'm not entirely confident that his reasons for saying such things would be the same as yours.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The politicians have so changed the tax code, employment laws, etc., that the 0.1% are doing a find job of looting the country, taking more and more wealth out of the country and into their own hands. So, yeah, I think that's a fair accusation.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
What's your best example of how politicians have so looted the country that there's now nothing left to loot?
quote:I certainly would never claim to speak for romanlion. I was thinking, perhaps foolishly, that my take on it would be interesting as well.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Thanks, mousethief, but I was specifically interested in romanlion's opinions on this point;
quote:On the subject of Australia and Australian citizenship, I expect Trump thinks he is The Don.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Does he know about The Don?
quote:Well, I thought it was worth a response - hence the second paragraph of my post - but maybe that didn't clear the threshold of your interest.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I certainly would never claim to speak for romanlion. I was thinking, perhaps foolishly, that my take on it would be interesting as well.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Thanks, mousethief, but I was specifically interested in romanlion's opinions on this point;
quote:I haven't as yet seen anything about Trump that does not appal me. But I've no vote in this particular circus.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... It's Trump's vanity that appals me so much, ...
quote:As it happens, I just got a circular from a local Republican organizer. He's pushing Trump and Cruz as "limited government" candidates in contrast to Rubio and Kasich's "Bush expansionism".
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have a reasonably large circle of acquaintance, and only this evening heard of someone I actually have met (the mother of a woman I just had dinner with) who is an open Trump supporter.
quote:This is an interesting run down of the latest news on Cruz and Trump. If that's the choice left to us, then its a choice of plague and cholera. That said, if I had to chose between only them, I might actually take Trump - mainly because he doesn't have his party's support. There is a reasonable chance that many Republicans would stay at home or at least be lukewarm campaigners. If he nevertheless became president (probably by accident), he might still have his party work against him. That could be all that separates us from a very serious international problem.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Trump qualified his earlier support for having the military attack the families of terrorists even if the families are innocent by saying he would obey current laws banning targeting innocent civilians but that they laws needed to be "expanded" (ie, changed). He defended his positive-sounding appraisals of authoritarian leaders in other countries (Putin especially) by saying that "strong does not mean good" but went on to note how effective China was in putting down the "riot" (yes he called it a riot!) in Tiananmen Square. This is incredibly ironic considering how beating on China for their trade policy is almost Trump's biggest talking point. He avoided giving a blanket condemnation of the violence against protestors at his rallies (and his own encouragement of it) and instead talked about how angry people have become because of the failures of the US's leaders. Ted Cruz also was lukewarm in the condemnation of the violence and focused on the anger incited by bad leadership.
quote:I wouldn't be surprised. He's certainly manufacturing some out of thin air. I am hearing through all my grapevines from people who were there that despite Trump's claims, there was nothing unsafe or riotous in Chicago last night. Lots of protesters but not danger.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Anyone else wondering if Trump is paying the more troublesome protesters? So he looks picked on?
quote:But some of the protesters were black. Black people are dangerous. That's why the police shoot them on sight.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I am hearing through all my grapevines from people who were there that despite Trump's claims, there was nothing unsafe or riotous in Chicago last night. Lots of protesters but not danger.
quote:Nice bit of "missing context" there. Her full quote is...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ok, I know Ann Coulter specializes in her own extremely offensive style of fringe Republican outrage...but "Coulter: I'd like to see 'a little more violence' from Trump supporters" (The Hill)?
quote:Note the context. If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.
quote:There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
quote:But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
For instance there's nothing in principle wrong with "I really wish x would manage to defend themselves more effectively against y" until I replace x with white supremacists and y with Jews.
quote:Do either of those categories genuinely exist in 2016 USA?
Originally posted by deano:
But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
quote:It would be OK If it were true. But again, it mischaracterizes what is really happening. It's marginalizing and demonizing the victims here and characterizes bullying thugs as "victims". It gives cover to racist, felonious assault. It's the sort of shock-jock rewriting of history that Coulter specializes in.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
For instance there's nothing in principle wrong with "I really wish x would manage to defend themselves more effectively against y" until I replace x with white supremacists and y with Jews.
quote:I think it's best to avoid calling either the protesters or the Trump supporters hoodlums or or thugs. Those words have all kinds of racial and class connotations, at least in the US, in addition to painting with very broad strokes categories of people that are reasonably diverse.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It would be OK If it were true. But again, it mischaracterizes what is really happening. It's marginalizing and demonizing the victims here and characterizes bullying thugs as "victims". It gives cover to racist, felonious assault. It's the sort of shock-jock rewriting of history that Coulter specializes in.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
For instance there's nothing in principle wrong with "I really wish x would manage to defend themselves more effectively against y" until I replace x with white supremacists and y with Jews.
quote:Is there evidence for this or is it speculation?
Originally posted by stonespring:
All of that said, at least some of the protesters are intentionally trying to bring out the worst in Trump supporters in order to get it on camera, in order to discredit Trump, or in order to get rallies canceled.
quote:I am speculating. I have nothing against the protesters. NPR reported that Moveon.org and other activist groups encouraged people to go protest the Trump rally at the University of Illinois Chicago. That is not what I am alleging, though.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Is there evidence for this or is it speculation?
Originally posted by stonespring:
All of that said, at least some of the protesters are intentionally trying to bring out the worst in Trump supporters in order to get it on camera, in order to discredit Trump, or in order to get rallies canceled.
quote:I think you may be verging on a comparison between the US of 2016 and 1930s Germany that runs afoul of Godwin's law. But it's hard to say for sure since I don't know what you consider a "significant" section of society, and also because according to Google "Olympia 1934" is a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hopefully, Drumpf is having his Olympia 1934 moment, but whereas we were outraged (even the Daily Mail was shocked!) by the Blackshirts, this is now happening in a country where mass violence is both normal and excusable for significant sections of society.
So I won't hold my breath.
quote:There's no such law. Arbitrary rules saying that you can't make comparisons with a certain period in history are bullshit.
RuthW: I think you may be verging on a comparison between the US of 2016 and 1930s Germany that runs afoul of Godwin's law.
quote:In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.
RuthW: Do you think a comparison between 1930s Germany and 2010s US is well founded? If so, please elaborate.
quote:I can see that, but I don't think all comparisons with Hitler are automatically thoughtless and inappropriate. And the irony of course is that in many cases, simply saying "Godwin!" has become the kind of thoughtless shouting that the institution of this 'law' was supposed to be a measure against.
RuthW: But there's a reason why "Godwin's law" became a thing on the internet, as it refers to thoughtless and inappropriate comparisons to Hitler and Nazism.
quote:I didn't, and reading back my post it may seem that I did. Apologies.
RuthW: I don't know why you think my comment was a kneejerk reaction.
quote:Anonymous has announced they'll help him demonstrate his incompetence, worthlessness and leadership idiocies. However, I doubt that most voters will pay them any mind.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have no problems with Trump demonstrating his incompetence, worthlessness and leadership idiocies to all the world. He passionately wants to do it, and I applaud the project. I simply don't want him to use the US as an arena for this. He has casinos. Let him do it there.
quote:How does a comment "run afoul" of Godwin's law (more properly called Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)? From Godwin's mouth, Godwin's Law is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." The idea that once someone mentions Hitler or Nazis, the discussion is over or the offending poster has lost the argument is not actually Godwin's Law.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think you may be verging on a comparison between the US of 2016 and 1930s Germany that runs afoul of Godwin's law.
quote:He wasn't simply pointing out how common analogies to the Nazis can be -- he was pointing out how inappropriate they can be. So yeah, you can run afoul of Godwin's Law, by posting an inappropriate Nazi analogy. Doc Tor did not do so, obviously, and I learned something new about 1930s Britain (and Harley-Davidson), so I'm glad I said something.
I framed Godwin’s Law as a pseudo-mathematical probability statement, almost like a law of physics. I wanted to hint that most people who brought Nazis into a debate about, say, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s views on gun control weren’t being thoughtful and independent. Instead, they were acting just as predictably, and unconsciously, as a log rolling down a hill.
Mike Godwin in the Washington Post last December.
quote:Perhaps. What I've been reading mostly is that Carson was a puppet in a scam perpetrated by others.
Brenda Clough: Carson is a fool, pure and simple.
quote:What do you have against Upper Volta?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
quote:Fair enough, though if I were to push it, I'd say it's more that one is proving Godwin's Law rather than running afoul of it. The latter suggests that Godwin's Law somehow prohibits the allusions rather than predicts and critiques them. YMMV.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's intention was to point out how inappropriate many analogies to Hitler and Nazism are:
quote:He wasn't simply pointing out how common analogies to the Nazis can be -- he was pointing out how inappropriate they can be. So yeah, you can run afoul of Godwin's Law, by posting an inappropriate Nazi analogy. Doc Tor did not do so, obviously, and I learned something new about 1930s Britain (and Harley-Davidson), so I'm glad I said something.
I framed Godwin’s Law as a pseudo-mathematical probability statement, almost like a law of physics. I wanted to hint that most people who brought Nazis into a debate about, say, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s views on gun control weren’t being thoughtful and independent. Instead, they were acting just as predictably, and unconsciously, as a log rolling down a hill.
Mike Godwin in the Washington Post last December.
quote:They need some traffic control. On their bridges.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:What do you have against Upper Volta?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:They need some traffic control. On their bridges.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:What do you have against Upper Volta?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
quote:There's only one Republican Flake in Congress? Surely not!!!
If I remember correctly, Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who's on the Judiciary Committee, also said he would meet with the nominee.
quote:Oh how I wish that were true. Six months after Trump is elected, I predict that you won't be able to pay people to admit they voted for him.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you are a US citizen, go here to learn how to register to vote. And in November go out and do it. Otherwise you forfeit all right to complain for the next four years.
quote:If this wasn't sarcasm, the disconnect in Russia is different than the disconnect in America.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
On the contrary: he might be an extremely popular President; perhaps in the style of the very popular President Putin.
quote:Brenda, that is behind a paywall.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How we got here. The last sentence is particularly fine.
quote:It opened for me with no problem.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Brenda, that is behind a paywall.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How we got here. The last sentence is particularly fine.
quote:What changed with Citizen's United was the creation of superpacs which allowed single individuals or corporations to do an end-run around spending limits. In the past, those spending limits would mean that even well-connected establishment candidates had to gain support from a large number of contributors in order to get the $$millions needed without exceeding the caps. This meant that GOP candidates had to reach out to the varied interests within the party-- the religious/ social conservatives who care about abortion and gay marriage, the fiscal conservatives who care about taxes and corporate welfare, the war hawks who care about military spending, the libertarians who want small government in every sense-- social as well as fiscal. Those are some very disparate interests, so it took a pretty centrist candidate, and someone adept at negotiation and compromise, to be able to appeal to enough of those varied interests to gather support. Many candidates would fail to do so and would have to drop out early in the race.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The author argues that everything began to go pear shaped in January 2010 with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in the Supreme Court, which declared that associations of people (read: rich folk and businesses) have free speech rights, and that not-for-profit entities are constitutionally allowed to collect and spend as much money as they want for political purposes, so long as they don’t coordinate those efforts with their candidates.
This filled the system with money. And oceans of money meant that even worthless candidates (looking at you, Bobby Jindal) stayed in contention for ages, dividing the party. Nobody united behind the winner, because everybody could be a winner. Without a healthy and viable establishment candidate to rule, a nutbar could come from behind (Trump) and parasitize the entire process.
quote:The difference was before a Tea Partier could win a congressional race, but would have to become far more centrist to get enough funding to win a presidential or in many cases even a Senate race. With Citizens United, that has changed.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not sure. The Tea Bagger movement began before that. IMO, Americans have been feeling a disconnect from Washington for a fair amount of time and the disenchantment has been steadily growing.
quote:This has me shaking my head in confusion too.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what has been puzzling me all along is this. What doleful social processes have been suppressing or corrupting bullshit detectors in the minds of so many people? .
quote:I think it's the backlash reaction to desegregation/ desegregation/ increased opportunity for racial & ethnic minorities. Obviously we (US) has taken great strides in racial opportunities in the last 50 years. In the 1970s and 1980s when the middle class was strong and prosperous and unemployment was low, we were able to accommodate that growth without significant sacrifice on the part of the white majority. However, as income inequality grew in the 21st c., as middle class wages plummeted, many white Americans looked for a scapegoat. This made them an easy target for the GOP dog-whistle race-based politics-- while simultaneously did a great smoke-and-mirrors job of keeping them focused on the advancement of immigrants and racial/ethnic minorities (allegedly at their expense) rather than at Wall Street where the real problem lies.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what has been puzzling me all along is this. What doleful social processes have been suppressing or corrupting bullshit detectors in the minds of so many people? You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Well, I hope so. The problem this time is that the "some" seems to apply to too many people and too much time for comfort.
quote:It's the echo chamber effect. When there were only 3 network news shows in my youth, they had to seek a moderate message. There was a greater investment in old-school mostly unbiased journalism. With the rise of cable news and niche marketing that all changes, you have networks geared toward particular ideologies, and a massive decline in old-school journalism. Hearing a steady diet of affirmation of your own biases only strengthens your blindspots.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've also heard the argument that the vastly increased influence of Fox News and Talk Radio is connected to relaxation of the guidelines and legislative framework in place for the media. Using the First Amendment on free speech to allow free manipulation of opinions? That strikes me as just as important as candidate funding in creating this toxic political environment.
quote:The lack of income for traditional newspapers isn't helping either.
cliffdweller: With the rise of cable news and niche marketing that all changes, you have networks geared toward particular ideologies, and a massive decline in old-school journalism.
quote:Exactly-- it's cause-and-effect. As cable news grows, newspapers lose readers & income, which means they cut staff, which means their quality declines, which causes them to lose readership...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The lack of income for traditional newspapers isn't helping either.
cliffdweller: With the rise of cable news and niche marketing that all changes, you have networks geared toward particular ideologies, and a massive decline in old-school journalism.
quote:There has actually been a deliberate and long-term effort on the part of the Republican party to degrade the critical thinking skills of their electorate. There have always been conspiracy theories in American politics (see The Paranoid Style in American Politics for a decent mid-twentieth-century rundown), but their acceptance into the political mainstream really only began in the 1980s.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what has been puzzling me all along is this. What doleful social processes have been suppressing or corrupting bullshit detectors in the minds of so many people?
quote:Given a divide between "[m]y heart and my best intentions" and "the facts and the evidence", the Republican party decided that heart and intentions were far more important. The factual accuracy of anything took a back seat to whether or not that thing was politically expedient or desirable. So in the 1990s there were things like the Clinton Body Count, or Congressman Dan Burton re-enacting the "murder" of Vince Foster by shooting a watermelon, or Filegate, or Travelgate, or any of the other empty scandals that eventually culminated in the Great Penis Hunt of 1998. Any time it was pointed out that the factual basis for any of these ranged from "thin" to "none", this was dismissed as irrelevant or an effort by The Media™ to suppress the truth.
A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.
quote:I doubt it. It turned out to be Newsweek, which I only read if it's lying around in a doctor's waiting room.
Originally posted by simontoad:
could it be that those who encountered the paywall had reached their limit of free articles from the particular publication?
quote:I basically agree, but I'd push the whole thing back earlier. Things started to go south for the white middle class in the 1980s. Union membership fell, and wages started to stagnate. Mortality spiked for white working class people aged 45-54 between 1999 and 2013, in large part due to alcohol/drug abuse and suicide. In 1999 people aged 45-54 were born 1945-1954 -- the biggest part of the baby boom got the longest lifespans for white working class people. In 2013 people aged 45-54 were born 1959-1968 -- the end of the baby boom and Generation X, people who all pretty much got screwed if they didn't get a good education and latch onto something lucrative in the 80s/early 90s.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think it's the backlash reaction to desegregation/ desegregation/ increased opportunity for racial & ethnic minorities. Obviously we (US) has taken great strides in racial opportunities in the last 50 years. In the 1970s and 1980s when the middle class was strong and prosperous and unemployment was low, we were able to accommodate that growth without significant sacrifice on the part of the white majority. However, as income inequality grew in the 21st c., as middle class wages plummeted, many white Americans looked for a scapegoat. This made them an easy target for the GOP dog-whistle race-based politics-- while simultaneously did a great smoke-and-mirrors job of keeping them focused on the advancement of immigrants and racial/ethnic minorities (allegedly at their expense) rather than at Wall Street where the real problem lies.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what has been puzzling me all along is this. What doleful social processes have been suppressing or corrupting bullshit detectors in the minds of so many people? ...
quote:
The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral [i.e. Washington/New York politicians/media], they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.
...
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. ...
The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
quote:Again, it's not that they did it deliberately. It was an unintended consequence and convergence of several other strategies-- the use of fear and conspiracy-thinking, the focus on scapegoating minorities/immigrants for loss of jobs, and the effect of Citizens United.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
So the influential movers and shapers within the GOP did this to themselves and the loyal party supporters? Having sown the wind, they are reaping the whirlwind?
I can see that being true for a segment of the party, maybe even a majority segment.
quote:And the Right talks about liberal elitism! (FYI, National Review is one of the key periodicals of the conservative intelligentsia. And yes, there is a conservative intelligentsia, so don't go on about that.) But wow is that out of touch! As someone who has lived in Upstate New York and befriended some of the Working-Class White families described, I found that particularly offensive.
Originally posted by RuthW:
And finally, a link to a National Review article by Kevin D. Williamson which makes me wonder when the Republican elites will start trying to figure out how to bar the white working class from the polls the way they're trying to keep black and brown people from voting. Here's a sample:
quote:
The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral [i.e. Washington/New York politicians/media], they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.
...
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. ...
The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
quote:How do you know when a politician is lying?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what has been puzzling me all along is this. What doleful social processes have been suppressing or corrupting bullshit detectors in the minds of so many people?
quote:Um, yeah. Overly-long, but a good clear explanation. They have sown the wind, and boy howdy is it now blowing hard.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
So the influential movers and shapers within the GOP did this to themselves and the loyal party supporters? Having sown the wind, they are reaping the whirlwind?
quote:Ruth I read as much of that article as I could stand. The first bit was intelligible to me, but the guff about family was frankly bizarre. Is that really the analysis put by conservatives - that divorce and abortion are destroying the family? I thought this bloke was supposed to be representing the Machiavellian Conservatives, not the lunatic throwbacks to my 70's Catholicism.
And finally, a link to a National Review article by Kevin D. Williamson which makes me wonder when the Republican elites will start trying to figure out how to bar the white working class from the polls the way they're trying to keep black and brown people from voting.
quote:Way to miss the point. This isn't about being afraid of a Trump presidency. This is about being afraid of chalk on a sidewalk promoting a Trump presidency.
Originally posted by simontoad:
It is strange to think this, but then I am a big beefy boofhead bloke taught at the teat that the world is mine for the taking, but some people really are afraid of a Trump Presidency. Some people really don't know how to distinguish between analysis and click-bait. I was a bit like that in my youth. If I was in my 20's now, I reckon I would sincerely believe that Trump was going to take the USA down an extremist path. I would have a wild look in my eye.
quote:Naughty? Seriously?
Oh, and you are being very naughty seeking to categorise this as a 'left' response. It is the response of an administrator who knows that they have a hot potato in their lap.
quote:I'm getting more and more interested in debating tricks, but I admit that I have very little vocabulary about it. I'm wondering if the trick saysay is using here has a name.
saysay: There are few people in the US who would seriously argue that most of the colleges in the US aren't primarily controlled and staffed by members of the left.
quote:No, saying that some members of the left are fueling the insanity in a particular way is not equivalent to saying that those members are representative of the entire left, which is a big and diverse place, much as the right is. But perhaps you're right and I should have been more precise with my language instead of taking it for granted that people would understand a common linguistic shortcut.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
She links to an article where a couple of students got upset about "Trump 2016" being chalked all over the campus and the reaction of the Administrator to this. She put this as "How the left is helping fuel the insanity", thereby framing it as if the reaction of these students and this Administrator is representative of 'the left'. I'm not sure if 'framing' is the most correct term here though, or whether there is another one which is more specific.
quote:I didn't say that "all colleges are staffed by the left." But it's a known fact that people working in higher ed lean left, which means most of the policies are written and implemented by members of the left. I also have trouble believing that there were many students on the right (no matter how much they may hate Trump) crying that the chalking perpetrators should be found and punished, but I could be wrong about that. That makes it a 'left' response (not the only possible lefty response, but one of them - simontoad accused me of being naughty for characterizing it as "a 'left' response" not the only possible response). The kind of (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of my position practiced by you and simontoad is the kind of thing that making me seriously debate withdrawing my membership from the left and joining the libertarians or something. Did you not learn in school that double quote marks are supposed to be used around the words the person actually said rather than your (mis)interpretation of them?
At the very least, there is a logical error here. Even if it were true that "all colleges are staffed by the left" (another instance of framing, but I'm willing to give her a pass here), this doesn't mean that a particular college is representative of the left.
quote:Or even if it is, that this administrator somehow acted as a representative of the left. Unquestionably, what the administrator does is done on behalf of the college. But in behalf of some amorphous political faction? Not necessarily at all.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
At the very least, there is a logical error here. Even if it were true that "all colleges are staffed by the left" (another instance of framing, but I'm willing to give her a pass here), this doesn't mean that a particular college is representative of the left.
quote:Mwah, saying 'the left' instead of 'some members of the left' is more than just a shortcut (and making insinuations about my capacity for understanding was a nice one). I'm going to stick with the term 'dishonest generalisation' for a while. But at least you seem to be taking it back here, which is good.
saysay: No, saying that some members of the left are fueling the insanity in a particular way is not equivalent to saying that those members are representative of the entire left, which is a big and diverse place, much as the right is. But perhaps you're right and I should have been more precise with my language instead of taking it for granted that people would understand a common linguistic shortcut.
quote:Agreed. You said that they're primarily staffed by the left.
saysay: I didn't say that "all colleges are staffed by the left."
quote:I'm not sure if this is entirely right, but this is where I said "I'm willing to give her a pass here". (Well, that and the fact that I'm experimenting with some tricks of my own. I call this one 'false magnanimity'.)
saysay: But it's a known fact that people working in higher ed lean left, which means most of the policies are written and implemented by members of the left.
quote:Okay, so what you meant to say in your earlier post is "How some members of the left who aren't representative of the left are helping fuel the insanity." Your argument is getting weaker and weaker.
saysay: I'm also not claiming that a particular college is representative of the left.
quote:Ah, at least I know the name of this one. It is called 'anecdotal evidence'. (I'm going to react to the point about prohibiting free speech later.)
saysay: I'm claiming that what is happening at this particular college can be taken as representative of what has been going on at many college campuses across the country (see FIRE for more examples of campuses prohibiting certain speech).
quote:So by the 'Cathedral' you mean a generalised group of colleges who aren't representative of the left (except that they are), but who are prohibiting free speech? You're getting a bit twisted here.
saysay: Colleges are generally included as part of the 'Cathedral'.
quote:Possibly, but I doubt it, any more than Liberty or Wheaton or a few other exceptions to the general trend are. That's why I used weasel words like 'most' and 'primarily.'
Originally posted by simontoad:
Is Trump University staffed by members of the left?
quote:I'm not whinging about anything. Except for the fact that my choice for the next president seems likely to come down to a choice between a liar who was willing to lie us into another destabilizing war and a lunatic showman with no realistic policy proposals.
What you are whinging about seems to me to be an exercise in bureaucracy rather than a socialist group cry.
quote:Update.
What the dean dude did was NOTHING, and he put a memo out pretending he was taking the whole thing seriously, and that a policy review already underway (probably perpetually) would take their concerns into account. Bureaucrats do this sort of thing in their sleep.
quote:Reviewing the security tapes and threatening criminal charges is not nothing.
But that's not the end of the story: Wagner also announced that he would review security footage in hopes of identifying the perpetrators and subjecting them to the "conduct violation process," according to The Emory Wheel. If the perpetrators are not students, trespassing charges will be filed.
quote:I hadn't heard the term 'Cathedral' in this context before, but from your posts I have a pretty good idea what it means.
saysay: It's about the Cathedral and understanding what the hell is going on in my culture.
quote:The Cathedral. And at
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I hadn't heard the term 'Cathedral' in this context before, but from your posts I have a pretty good idea what it means.
saysay: It's about the Cathedral and understanding what the hell is going on in my culture.
quote:Not in the slightest. Colleges are included in the Cathedral, they are not the Cathedral. The Cathedral is a term used primarily in alt-right and NRX circles. Google 'cathedral moldbug' if you're really interested (warning: it may make your eyes bleed).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:So by the 'Cathedral' you mean a generalised group of colleges who aren't representative of the left (except that they are), but who are prohibiting free speech? You're getting a bit twisted here.
saysay: Colleges are generally included as part of the 'Cathedral'.
quote:Well, I'm an American-- and there are a few others here. And so far the comments on this thread re the election seem pretty astute- insightful even-- and representative of what I hear in my conservative evangelical circles. I don't resonate with your comments, and they don't represent the Americans in my particular circle. so... ymmmv. There are obviously regional and cultural differences within the US, but there's also experience. I suspect you are right that your particular experience is skewing your study, although the same may be true with me as well, or with all of us.
Originally posted by saysay:
I honestly don't care whether or not you believe that the regressive left is a real thing in the US that more and more people have been complaining about and getting extremely angry about. Frankly I don't understand why so many of the participants on a thread about an American election aren't American and why y'all seem so convinced that you know our culture better than we do.
quote:I would call it correlation error.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm getting more and more interested in debating tricks, but I admit that I have very little vocabulary about it. I'm wondering if the trick saysay is using here has a name.
saysay: There are few people in the US who would seriously argue that most of the colleges in the US aren't primarily controlled and staffed by members of the left.
She links to an article where a couple of students got upset about "Trump 2016" being chalked all over the campus and the reaction of the Administrator to this. She put this as "How the left is helping fuel the insanity", thereby framing it as if the reaction of these students and this Administrator is representative of 'the left'. I'm not sure if 'framing' is the most correct term here though, or whether there is another one which is more specific.
When simontoad calls her out on this, she reacts with "surely most colleges are staffed by the left?"
At the very least, there is a logical error here. Even if it were true that "all colleges are staffed by the left" (another instance of framing, but I'm willing to give her a pass here), this doesn't mean that a particular college is representative of the left.
But I'm looking for a term for this debating trick. My first instinct says 'moving the goalposts', but that doesn't seem to be specific enough either.
quote:I'M NOT ON THE RIGHT.
Originally posted by cliffdwellar:Saysay and others on the right want to suggest it is a form of elitism-- a way of slamming the door of access to the middle class behind you and looking down on the "ignorant."
quote:Who is telling you this-- and in what context???
Originally posted by saysay:
I just wish people would stop telling me to stop believing my lying eyes and ears. The way out of our godawful postmodern morass involves including as many perspectives as possible, not continuing the dominance game.
quote:Sorry-- ambiguous grammar on my part. Yes, you'd already staked out your place on the left, even though you rarely argue from that pov.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I'M NOT ON THE RIGHT.
Originally posted by cliffdwellar:Saysay and others on the right want to suggest it is a form of elitism-- a way of slamming the door of access to the middle class behind you and looking down on the "ignorant."
Do not tell me what I want or there will be a hellcall.
There are nasty elitists on both the left and the right. Denying that is delusional.
quote:I'm not American. I'm fascinated by your Presidential election. Your excellent TV series The West Wing is partly to blame, but the main reason for my interest is that the next leader of the Free World will make decisions which will affect me. If, for example, the analysis of the Economist Intelligence Unit is accurate, Mr Trump's "hostile attitude towards free trade" could lead to a trade war and his "militaristic tendencies" about the Middle East could boost the recruitment of extremist groups.
Originally posted by saysay:
[...]Frankly I don't understand why so many of the participants on a thread about an American election aren't American and why y'all seem so convinced that you know our culture better than we do. I don't understand why your reaction to everything in this thread isn't just to shrug. If the regressive left isn't a problem in the UK/Africa/Brazil then I'm happy for you.[...]
quote:Okay, that doesn't change my argument in the slightest.
saysay: Colleges are included in the Cathedral, they are not the Cathedral.
quote:Yes, Nick Tamen's links were helpful too. The term 'Cathedral' seems to mean: we take an amorph grouple we don't like, and we throw random insinuations and accusations at them that are just vague enough for us to be able to say "we didn't say that" when called out on it.
saysay: The Cathedral is a term used primarily in alt-right and NRX circles. Google 'cathedral moldbug' if you're really interested (warning: it may make your eyes bleed).
quote:The main reason of course is that the Ship of Fools isn't a bulletin board restricted to US citizens. In fact, it explicitly invites diversity of arguments, which I take to include diversity of national backgrounds.
saysay: Frankly I don't understand why so many of the participants on a thread about an American election aren't American and why y'all seem so convinced that you know our culture better than we do.
quote:Thank you, yes, this term could be a good start.
cliffdweller: I would call it correlation error.
quote:I think its another way of describing "The Cathedral".
Originally posted by RuthW:
What is "the regressive left"?
quote:I seriously doubt you are more freakish than 50% of your Shipmates.
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm a freak, I know that, that's fine.
quote:Eyes and ears are mere tools, seeing and listening something else and while varied perspectives matter the most critical and difficult thing to do is to reconcile them and uncover the sources that are, for one reason or another, concealed. Gold is rarely found on the surface.
I just wish people would stop telling me to stop believing my lying eyes and ears. The way out of our godawful postmodern morass involves including as many perspectives as possible, not continuing the dominance game.
quote:Yes, that's a helpful starting point.
Athrawes: Giving positive or negative adjectives to describe nouns is called positioning. Does that help?
quote:Probably not a good way to ask for cigarettes in the U.S.
Originally posted by simontoad:
A packet of Trump fags would be good too.
quote:Or the UK (in the UK Trumps = farts)
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Probably not a good way to ask for cigarettes in the U.S.
Originally posted by simontoad:
A packet of Trump fags would be good too.
quote:Very much so. I open my daily electric New York Times in the morning, a bit nervous about what might have been said the day before. My Venezuelan postperson commented that she thought she had been watching the US news on Saturday, but it had turned out to be Saturday Night Live (a satirical and variety show, for those out of range of US television). She said that she knew many intelligent and decent US folks, but they did not seem to be running in the election. Perhaps locally, I suggested, and away from the television cameras.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Nothing of major significance is going to happen for a while. The excitement of substance will kick up with the conventions, in the summer. The GOP convention in Cleveland shows every prospect of being a hoedown with real fireworks -- someone pointed out to me today that it is taking place in Kasich's home state, which is why he is not throwing in the towel. They have set up a call for extra riot barriers and police forces.
Our only hope of real incident between now and then is some (or even more) spectacular flameout or outrage from some candidate or another. It is this horrified fascination that is to the fore at this moment. To every thing there is a season, and a time for every meme under heaven.
quote:It's a term people I know use to refer to the (hopefully small) portion of the left that seeks to censor ideas it doesn't like and shut down conversation rather than engage in the liberal free exchange of ideas.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What is "the regressive left"?
quote:No, not really, not the way I commonly hear those terms used. 'The Cathedral' is an inescapable web of interlocking systems verging on a conspiracy. The regressive left are a minority of people on the left, much like the Tea Partiers are on the right.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think its another way of describing "The Cathedral".
quote:Well, yes. The point of distinguishing the regressive left as a small part of the overall left is that while they frequently claim to be progressive or liberal, their methods are frequently seen as abhorrent to others who call themselves liberals.
It would be silly to deny that such regression doesn't exist, but it would be equally silly to assert that somehow it is an inevitable consequence of the beliefs and opinions commonly shared amongst people of the left, or liberals, or what-have-you.
quote:Seriously, don't tell me what I want. I think you're engaged in serious projection here.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
She wants whatever happened at that college to stick to all of us.
quote:
One of the ways of doing this is using anecdotal evidence of course, but she can even back this up a bit by saying that college staff are more left-wing. Statistically that might even be true. It doesn't give her the logical arguments to generalise from one event to the whole 'left' of course, but it might just stick.
quote:Keep incorrectly speculating about my motives and you'll wind up with a hellcall.
But at the same time hoping that some part of the accusation will still stick.
quote:Here's the thing: I'm a descriptivist when it comes to linguistics. If everybody uses a word to mean a certain thing, and everybody (or almost everybody) understands the word to refer to that thing, then that is effectively the definition of the word.
Now, I also want a name for something else she's doing here which is a bit broader. The term I'm looking for would refer to giving a slightly negative sounding name to a relatively large amorphous group of people, such as 'Cathedral' or 'regressive left' and throwing a lot of slippery correlations at them as a way of framing.
quote:Exactly. You say that this is a problem on the left, but you're deliberately vague about how much it applies. You make the scope of the correlation bigger or smaller as needed.
saysay: I don't want whatever happened at that college to stick to all of 'you' (whoever that may be). I want to address something that I see as a problem on the left within the US
quote:Pretty please?
saysay: Keep incorrectly speculating about my motives and you'll wind up with a hellcall.
quote:No, but you gave me a pretty good idea of what these terms mean.
saysay: I didn't invent the terms 'Cathedral' or 'regressive left.'
quote:"As needed"? As needed for what? This is a discussion board. I'm attempting to understand and discuss my culture and Trump's popularity.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Exactly. You say that this is a problem on the left, but you're deliberately vague about how much it applies. You make the scope of the correlation bigger or smaller as needed.
saysay: I don't want whatever happened at that college to stick to all of 'you' (whoever that may be). I want to address something that I see as a problem on the left within the US
quote:FWIW, I'm American, and I like to think I'm reasonably well informed and attentive. I do have some direct involvement in academia. Having said that, I had never heard either term until this thread. The two links I provided were found by googling. My hunch is that both terms, but perhaps "the Cathedral" in particular, are mainly used by a particular group and may not have hit the mainstream yet.
Originally posted by saysay:
I didn't invent the terms 'Cathedral' or 'regressive left.' They are terms used among the people I know to refer to specific ideas. Clearly they are not necessarily terms used internationally or even across the US. I didn't know that before I posted; I honestly have no idea how widespread their usage is.
quote:Conversely, a couple weeks ago when the actual, live prime-time Republican debate devolved into a middle-school literal pissing contest re who's junk is bigger, I was sure I must be watching the opening segment of SNL... but no, this was the real thing. Maybe that's the real reason Jon Stewart retired early (sob, snif)-- there's not much left for the satirical shows when you've got real life absurdities like this.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My Venezuelan postperson commented that she thought she had been watching the US news on Saturday, but it had turned out to be Saturday Night Live (a satirical and variety show, for those out of range of US television).
quote:Instead of getting offended by smears against the entire left that I'm not making or picking apart the logic of generalities that I'm not making (however sloppy my language), do you want to argue with the assertion that I am making?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I used the term 'slippery correlation' before, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the term 'slippery'. I want something that expresses "I can make it as big or as small as I want" a bit more clearly. I was thinking about 'accordion correlation' but that sounds a bit too cheerful (I like accordions).
quote:I think you're probably right about that. IME at the very least they're used a lot more on the right and in libertarian circles, and the ship tends to be a fairly lefty place.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, I'm American, and I like to think I'm reasonably well informed and attentive. I do have some direct involvement in academia. Having said that, I had never heard either term until this thread. The two links I provided were found by googling. My hunch is that both terms, but perhaps "the Cathedral" in particular, are mainly used by a particular group and may not have hit the mainstream yet.
quote:Oh, definitely. I just find it a convenient shorthand to refer to both a certain set of beliefs and the people who believe them, most of whom I consider complete nutjobs.
I will admit that the idea of "the Cathedral" sets my conspiracy-theory-trumps-reality antennae a-tingle. I'm not suggesting that about you, or assuming anything other than that you're using terms you're familiar with to label what you're describing from your experience. But the label itself does give me that vibe.
quote:Lord, I hope not. I have absolutely no idea what in the world is fueling Trump's popularity. As mentioned upthread, despite swimming in some very very conservative con-evo circles, I don't know a single Trump supporter-- or at least anyone who'll own up to it. So I have no idea what in the world is driving his popularity, I can't even figure out where the heck these people are. I've heard a lot of hand-wringing and a lot of speculation but so far really haven't heard any real-live Trump supporters explaining why/what is driving them. There were a couple of links upthread but they didn't really tell us much.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can we agree that the students protesting Trump campaign slogans written in chalk as acts of violence are unlikely to be on the right and in all likelihood consider themselves to be members of the left?
Now, do you agree or disagree with my assertion that this behavior - and much of the rest of the left's tolerance for it and failure to call it out - is part of what is fueling Trump's popularity?
quote:Damning of who? Why????
Originally posted by saysay:
IMO what they admit as true is damning enough.
quote:Doesn't sound like that is what happened. From the Snopes article linked above:
Originally posted by Marama:
Why did the Emory students not either
A. Get a bucket and brush and wash the slogan off or B. Cover it up with their own poster?
Graffiti wars amongst students have gone on for ever. Involving the management seems extraordinary.
quote:
In nearly all such claims, details of the actual controversy were obfuscated by embellished elements framing students or schools as overly sensitive. While it was true some students of color expressed that the large number of Trump chalkings made them uneasy, most simply gathered to express their political distaste for the presidential candidate and his platforms on issues of race and religion.
quote:Baloney. Trump is the only Republican candidate with a realistic chance of gaining enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, but he hasn't pulled so far away from Cruz as to make the rest of the primary voting a moot point. It is increasingly likely that the June 7 primaries in California, New Jersey and a few small states will determine whether Trump goes to Cleveland with the nomination sewn up or facing a contested or even a brokered convention. Recent polling, as reported in the San Jose Mercury News, shows Trump with a marked lead in delegate-rich California, but it also shows that he didn't pick up any votes here when Rubio dropped out of the race, which may indicate that he has maxed out his support at less than 40% of the electorate.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Nothing of major significance is going to happen for a while.
quote:I don't know. Suggest something.
saysay: What's the word for the argumentative technique in which you derail discussion by insisting on speculating about a person's intentions or motives for holding positions they don't actually hold? It seems to be popular on the ship.
quote:First of all, you keep talking from the starting point that these students or their Rector did something wrong. They didn't.
saysay: Can we agree that the students protesting Trump campaign slogans written in chalk as acts of violence are unlikely to be on the right and in all likelihood consider themselves to be members of the left?
Now, do you agree or disagree with my assertion that this behavior - and much of the rest of the left's tolerance for it and failure to call it out - is part of what is fueling Trump's popularity?
quote:Given the increasing divide between faculty and administration at these institutions I'm not sure you can reach any conclusions about who is writing policies by surveying who is on faculty. I'm also pretty sure that a college's anti-vandalism rules aren't necessarily "left" or "right". Seems kind of value neutral to me.
Originally posted by saysay:
I didn't say that "all colleges are staffed by the left." But it's a known fact that people working in higher ed lean left, which means most of the policies are written and implemented by members of the left.
quote:You'll note that the study is (deliberately?) constructed in such a way to exclude faculty at law schools or business colleges, which are typically administratively separate from undergraduate schools and usually not four-year programs. I have no data, but these institutions have a reputation for being somewhat politically conservative. The fact that the study was constructed in such a way to exclude the faculty at these schools seems like fishing for the "right" answer.
Among full-time faculty members at four-year colleges and universities, the percentage identifying as "far left" or liberal has increased notably in the last three years, while the percentage identifying in three other political categories has declined.
quote:Bulverism. It comes from C.S. Lewis and outside certain Christian/peri-Christian circles I don't think its widely used. More's the pity - it's a great insight.
Originally posted by saysay:
What's the word for the argumentative technique in which you derail discussion by insisting on speculating about a person's intentions or motives for holding positions they don't actually hold? It seems to be popular on the ship.
quote:Jamelle Bouie has some interesting thoughts about Trump's rise.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've read a lot of accusations that the left (or President Obama specifically) are somehow to blame for Trump. Sorry, but that's bullshit. The voters who are more than happy to put a wall between them and Mexico are to blame for Trump.
Even if there were some truth in this: suppose that there are some things the Democratic Party does for its own reasons, but that indirectly strengthen Trump. Should it stop doing those things? I don't think so. Democrats shouldn't let Trump dictate their agenda.
quote:The whole thing is worth a read, but the short version is that Obama is to "blame" for Trump's rise because he's been blatantly PWB*. This is regarded as intolerable to a certain segment of the American population.
But none of these theories answer the question why now. Each of these forces has been in play for years. Wages for working-class Americans have long been stagnant, and the collapse of job opportunities for workers without a college degree was apparent in the 1990s, long before the Great Recession. What’s more, economic and social decline—as well as frustration with foreign competition, which Trump has channeled in his campaign—isn’t unique to white Americans. Millions of Americans—blacks and Latinos in particular—have faced declining economic prospects and social disintegration for years without turning to a demagogue like Trump.
<snip>
We can’t say the same for Obama as a political symbol, however. In a nation shaped and defined by a rigid racial hierarchy, his election was very much a radical event, in which a man from one of the nation’s lowest castes ascended to the summit of its political landscape. And he did so with heavy support from minorities: Asian Americans and Latinos were an important part of Obama’s coalition, and black Americans turned out at their highest numbers ever in 2008.
<snip>
For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes—which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan—would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.
quote:My institution of higher learning has a bicameral governing structure. The Senate is the academic governing body, and is, as you would expect, mostly tenured faculty. The Board of Governors, on the other hand, has financial authority, and consists mainly of wealthy and well-connected conservative donors to the current governing political party. They're most definitely not lefties. Faculties such as law, medicine, commerce, engineering, or forestry aren't exactly teeming with lefties either. IME, scientists that don't work in biological or environmental sciences are just as likely to be lefties or righties.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given the increasing divide between faculty and administration at these institutions I'm not sure you can reach any conclusions about who is writing policies by surveying who is on faculty. ...
Originally posted by saysay:
I didn't say that "all colleges are staffed by the left." But it's a known fact that people working in higher ed lean left, which means most of the policies are written and implemented by members of the left.
quote:Whilst tangents can go wandering off into the undergrowth, it's difficult to see how to understand what is happening (on the GOP side especially) without considering the culture from which his support is drawn.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Thanks for pointing us back to the election, rather than the broader cultural wars.
I've very much enjoyed reading the stuff posted by saysay and the responses to her posts. It's been a great discussion. I've had a bit of fun, as is my wont, but I've also been learning. I love learning.
quote:Gratuitous tangent from my anecdotage: An English colleague who had just quit smoking was in a bar in rural Arizona at the end of a long day of flight trials, and remarked that he was dying for a fag. Dead silence in the bar...
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Or the UK (in the UK Trumps = farts)
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Probably not a good way to ask for cigarettes in the U.S.
Originally posted by simontoad:
A packet of Trump fags would be good too.
quote:Our precinct went 29–8 for Bernie.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Today was Democratic Caucus day in Washington State. The caucus I went to was very crowded. Since it was a suburban neighborhood it was 23 to 18 Clinton to Sanders which meant 3 to 1 delegates to the country caucus.
Overall Sanders won the state by a substantial margin It doesn't mean to much, but you could see traces of an earlier way which may have been useful.
I kept thinking of the Will Roger's line "I'm not a member of any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat.
quote:I think this is true. He has a couple of endorsements from House Representatives, but not from Senators or Governors.
Robert Armin: Recently on Facebook a statement has been going round, saying NONE of Sanders' other Democratic Senators have endorsed him.
quote:In the Democratic party sitting Democratic Representatives, Senators, and Governors cast votes at the Democratic National Convention as unpledged delegates (a.k.a superdelegates). As such, there's often a bit of a political calculus going on in their endorsements, since if they pick wrong they've just voted against their party's eventual nominee (and possibly against the next president). Hillary Clinton was fairly aggressive in courting superdelegates early (Barack Obama had done the same thing to her in 2008 and Hillary Clinton almost never makes the same mistake twice) and had locked up almost 400 of them before the first vote was cast in Iowa. In other words, Sanders not just has to convince other Senators that they like his message, he has to convince them that he's got a realistic chance of winning.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think this is true. He has a couple of endorsements from House Representatives, but not from Senators or Governors.
Robert Armin: Recently on Facebook a statement has been going round, saying NONE of Sanders' other Democratic Senators have endorsed him.
quote:You do realize that Glen Campbell is in no shape to run?
Originally posted by simontoad:
I was just cruising you-tube and I've come across the answer to America's Trump problem. Get Glen Campbell to run as an independent and split the working class republican vote. Wichita Lineman
quote:In US politics, if you are in the House or Senate you have much more freedom to vote against party leadership than an MP in most other countries. However, you are expected to support the incumbent president if s/he is from your party and your party's nominee for president, and even if the nominee has not been decided yet, you probably have much more freedom in how you vote in Congress than in who you endorse for the presidential nomination (in terms of how it will affect your political career). One reason for this is that not much has been getting passed in Congress for quite some time.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Recently on Facebook a statement has been going round, saying NONE of Sanders' other Democratic Senators have endorsed him. Does anyone know if this statement is true and, if so, significant? From my perspective it doesn't sound good. (Posting as an ignorant Brit, who finds this thread fascinating and informative.)
quote:Crœsos, many thanks for the update on the standings. A technical question which you or someone else might be able to answer: What's the background behind this winner-takes-all approach to the distribution of states' seats? It is used both in the primaries/causes and then again for most of the states in the actual election. While it might be more decisive when looking for a candidate, the idea of winning California on a single vote and then sending every electoral college seat in the seat to represent the winning party strikes me as being unnecessarily undemocratic.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ted Cruz needs 771 delegates to win outright. This means he'd need to win ~84% of all remaining delegates. With winner-take-all contests this is theoretically possible but Cruz would have to start winning a lot more consistently than he has been.
quote:On the Republican side the winner-take-all primaries and caucuses are supposed to allow the party to consolidate behind the frontrunner. Recognizing the danger of a few early victories giving an unelectable oddball the momentum to capture the nomination, the Republican National Committee decided that no state could have a winner-take-all primary before a certain date. (This year it was March 15.) So states can either increase their influence by going early, helping to weed out the weakest candidates, or they could go later and be decisive by doling out all their delegates in one big glob. (That is the proper collective noun for delegates, or at least it should be. A murder of crows, a parliament of owls, a glob of delegates.) Of the 17 remaining Republican primaries and caucuses, all but five are winner-take-all or winner-take-most contests. In other words, it's supposed to avoid the situation where the party arrives at convention and no candidate controls a majority of delegates. Ironically there are now several factions within the Republican party now trying to engineer exactly this outcome. We'll have to see if they can derail the system of their own design.
Originally posted by molopata:
Crœsos, many thanks for the update on the standings. A technical question which you or someone else might be able to answer: What's the background behind this winner-takes-all approach to the distribution of states' seats? It is used both in the primaries/causes and then again for most of the states in the actual election. While it might be more decisive when looking for a candidate, the idea of winning California on a single vote and then sending every electoral college seat in the seat to represent the winning party strikes me as being unnecessarily undemocratic.
quote:Didn't stop Reagan
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:You do realize that Glen Campbell is in no shape to run?
Originally posted by simontoad:
I was just cruising you-tube and I've come across the answer to America's Trump problem. Get Glen Campbell to run as an independent and split the working class republican vote. Wichita Lineman
quote:Again, thank you for walking me through this: I very much appreciate it!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On the Republican side the winner-take-all primaries and caucuses [...]
quote:That isn't what we have in the US.
Originally posted by molopata:
...politics should be more than a zero-sum game between two antagonistic parties.
quote:I think it was Yusuf Islam (ex Cat Stevens) who said about the nascent Egyptian democracy that the biggest challenge they faced was that democracy was not simply holding an election and having a winning party. After winning a party then has to build a consensus where the losers have some stake in the state.
Originally posted by molopata:
won't be sorted until the various sides work out that politics should be more than a zero-sum game between two antagonistic parties.
quote:That's so good it gets two of these.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it was Yusuf Islam (ex Cat Stevens) who said about the nascent Egyptian democracy that the biggest challenge they faced was that democracy was not simply holding an election and having a winning party. After winning a party then has to build a consensus where the losers have some stake in the state.
It's not possible to turn the other side around and make them party members, and clearly some people will always be horribly disaffected no matter what you do, but you need a substantial portion of the losing side to not feel totally disaffected and marginalized or you are simply setting up a drawn out war of sub-cultures within a population that is doomed to come crashing down.
He was prescient regarding Egypt because that does appear to be what happened. The Islamists won, and then governed without building any consensus from any part of the more liberal groups. And it didn't work. (And now has gone back to military dictatorship).
It is worrying that there are some more mature democracies who appear to be developing a similar vulnerability.
quote:Apparently Singapore toyed at one point with the idea of splitting up its massively dominant ruling party into an "A team" and a "B team" in the hope of creating some plurality...
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is worrying that there are some more mature democracies who appear to be developing a similar vulnerability.
quote:Exactly.
It is worrying that there are some more mature democracies who appear to be developing a similar vulnerability.
quote:I often feel that this is an inherent weakness of representative democracy.
mdijon: It is worrying that there are some more mature democracies who appear to be developing a similar vulnerability.
quote:How can they be unaware when they get dozens of fliers left at their door and are inundated with robocalls?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Frankly, they are lucky in some places if even 20% of people even know that the election is happening.
quote:And they can't turn on the TV without hearing about Trump, Trump, Trump.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:How can they be unaware when they get dozens of fliers left at their door and are inundated with robocalls?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Frankly, they are lucky in some places if even 20% of people even know that the election is happening.
quote:Aside from noting that Rubio thinks he was campaigning for President of the Untied States of America, this seems to indicate that the knives are out and rather than the four day infomercial we've come to expect the Republican National Convention has the potential to be rather interesting.
When presidential candidates suspend their campaigns, typically their delegates become free to support the candidate of their own choosing at the convention. Rubio, however, has quietly been reaching out to party officials with a different approach.
He is personally asking state parties in 21 states and territories to refrain from releasing any of the 172 delegates he won while campaigning this year, MSNBC has learned.
Rubio sent a signed letter to the Chair of the Alaska Republican Party requesting the five delegates he won in that state "remain bound to vote for me" at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.
Rubio copied National Chairman Reince Preibus on the letter - and sent the same request to all 21 states and territories where he won delegates, a source working for Rubio confirmed.
quote:Why wouldn't it be? There were riots in Chicago in 1968.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Interesting hour on Trump's progress over here tonight on Ch.4. with Matt Frei. But some threats of civil mayhem being uttered by his supporters if he is stymied at any point. Is this realistic in any meaningful way?
quote:The New York Times is reporting that there are increasingly louder questions about whether the corporate donors expected to fund the Republican convention will come through.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... this seems to indicate that the knives are out and rather than the four day infomercial we've come to expect the Republican National Convention has the potential to be rather interesting.
quote:
Coca-Cola has already declined to match the $660,000 it provided to the 2012 Republican convention, donating only $75,000 to this year’s gathering and indicating that it does not plan to provide more.
Kent Landers, a Coca-Cola spokesman, declined to explain the reduction in support. But officials at the company are trying to quietly defuse a campaign organized by the civil rights advocacy group Color of Change, which says it has collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition demanding that Coca-Cola, Google, Xerox and other companies decline to sponsor the convention. Donating to the event, the petition states, is akin to endorsing Mr. Trump’s “hateful and racist rhetoric.’’
“These companies have a choice right now, a history-making choice,” said Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change. “Once they start writing checks, they are essentially making a commitment to support the platform of somebody who has threatened riots at the convention. Do they want riots brought to us by Coca-Cola?”
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
We have a municipal election coming up April 12. At the last one, in 2014, turn-out was 14.2% of registered voters -- 40,589 people in a city with over 450,000 residents, 285,029 of whom are registered voters. City council members in the districts are elected with just a few thousand votes. When people say their vote doesn't matter, I just laugh.
quote:More like five hours in this county in Arizona -- if they were lucky enough to find a place to park. (I voted by mail).
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...so you could give up a half hour at a polling station. Do it.
quote:Yes, this is the answer, in fact, mandatory voting would be a huge step forward for the USA imo.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If our votes didn't matter, people would not be trying so hard to fuck with them. Go forth, Americans!
Especially y'all women. Good women got spit on so you could give up a half hour at a polling station. Do it.
quote:I must admit to wondering, a few times, whether some of his more outrageous comments were deliberately designed to shoot himself in the foot. Trouble is, so far they seem to have had the reverse effect.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is now calling for women who have illegal abortions to be punished, I don't think he really wants to be president.
quote:It reminds me of the famous Grouch Marx quotation:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is now calling for women who have illegal abortions to be punished, <snip> No such thing as bad publicity? Anyway, he appears to have retracted. Teflon Trump rides again?
quote:Don't you believe it. There are a lot of votes in that statement, and he knows it. He's only withdrawn it because the party managers have rapped his knuckles.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is now calling for women who have illegal abortions to be punished, I don't think he really wants to be president.
quote:I dont think he listens to the party managers. (And there are a lot of them who agree with this statement on abortion.)
Sioni Sais: He's only withdrawn it because the party managers have rapped his knuckles.
quote:Trump doesn't care what the party managers have to say, but this is consistent with his campaign so far. Say something outrageous. When called on it claim he didn't really say the outrageous thing and anyone saying he did is just The Media™ out to get him. As I've noted before, most of the success of his campaign comes from his willingness to say the quiet parts loud or, in as one blogger put it, "Trump Articulates Republican Position With Insufficient Dishonesty".
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Don't you believe it. There are a lot of votes in that statement, and he knows it. He's only withdrawn it because the party managers have rapped his knuckles.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is now calling for women who have illegal abortions to be punished, I don't think he really wants to be president.
quote:While you are likely right about his attitude to Republic party managers, it is more likely that his own pollsters sent him a very quick tweet on the likely effect among Republican women voters. However, it might have been intended to wean away Cruzophiliac evangelicals for the nomination battle. Or it might have just emerged out of his head for no reason whatsoever-- he sends up dozens of trial balloons of this nature and, when one or two of them catch fire, he claims innate brilliance.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I dont think he listens to the party managers. (And there are a lot of them who agree with this statement on abortion.)
Sioni Sais: He's only withdrawn it because the party managers have rapped his knuckles.
quote:… to become the President.
Brenda Clough: There are far smarter ways to encourage voting than at gunpoint.
The simplest way is to have a national lottery. They hand you a ticket as you leave the voting booth. The drawing is on the day after Election Day, the Wednesday evening. The prize is
quote:That would scare off most people!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:… to become the President.
Brenda Clough: There are far smarter ways to encourage voting than at gunpoint.
The simplest way is to have a national lottery. They hand you a ticket as you leave the voting booth. The drawing is on the day after Election Day, the Wednesday evening. The prize is
quote:OK if he wins the nomination, and this happens:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I must admit to wondering, a few times, whether some of his more outrageous comments were deliberately designed to shoot himself in the foot. Trouble is, so far they seem to have had the reverse effect.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is now calling for women who have illegal abortions to be punished, I don't think he really wants to be president.
No such thing as bad publicity? Anyway, he appears to have retracted. Teflon Trump rides again?
quote:If only!
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
OK if he wins the nomination, and this happens:
"Now that I have won the Republican nomination, I withdraw my campaign. My purpose in seeking presidency was to create a platform of the worst, most inhuman and oppressive policies promoted by the Teabag contingent, and to show you how awful they are. The fact that so many of you voted for me shows that America is in deep shit. Shame on all of you." (Mic drop)
... I would be first in line to pin a medal of honor on him.
quote:Voting-from-home is the standard here in Oregon, though we prefer to drop our ballots off in the collection box at the local library rather than returning them by mail. It actually works pretty well: I can check to see that my ballot has been received, and request a duplicate from the County Clerk if it hasn't. So far the incidence of fraud has been very low, and not for lack of checking. (The biggest problem seems to be coffee stains on the ballots as folks fill them out on the kitchen table.)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And even if people voted from home, with absentee ballots, their votes might not matter. The ballots might be purposely "lost" before getting to the registrar. Here in SF, ballot boxes have been known to wind up in the bay.
quote:Citation needed. Not because I'm trying to be argumentative, but "electoral fraud" has become very trendy, far out of proportion to the actual incidence of irregularities. For example, after every election, there is a huge to-do about one person voting in multiple states. Once these cases are examined, it turns out that there really are individuals with the same name - and sometimes even the same birthdate - as other individuals in other states. Well, duh. In a country with over 300 million people, that is going to happen. Other cases of "fraud" have turned out to be clerical errors by poll workers.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... And even if people voted from home, with absentee ballots, their votes might not matter. The ballots might be purposely "lost" before getting to the registrar. Here in SF, ballot boxes have been known to wind up in the bay.
quote:That will depend greatly on the details of the statistics behind that.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
... it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years...
quote:This is exactly what I meant by the sudden shift to vote by mail in the midterms.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Local council finds two missing ballot boxes - after announcing 'winning' candidate
Happens anywhere?
quote:You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years. That seems incredible to me. Have things really been that bad for that long?
quote:Food and many clothes are cheaper too but Take home pay is apposite. Consider the cost of the roof over your head, whether you buy or rent. It's an absurd proportion of take-home pay in the UK and seems similar in the US.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, it claimed that 3/4 of Americans have had no rise in their take home incomes for the past 40 years. That seems incredible to me. Have things really been that bad for that long?
e.g. what we can do with a smart phone here is pretty amazing when you think about the price and efficiency.
Information is cheap. Entertainment is cheap. Connecting to people is cheap. Buying stuff is easier (as long as you have some money) and takes less time.
The cost of shipping stuff in the States astounds me - it costs next to nothing to ship stuff across that country in 2 days. The efficiencies of the movement of goods is astounding compared to most of the world.
quote:Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
quote:Most of that is is things one doesn't need. The true measure is cost of living, which Sioni and GK begin to reference.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
quote:Welcome to the trickle down theory in action. 40 years of lower taxes, privatisation and smaller govt.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Most of that is is things one doesn't need. The true measure is cost of living, which Sioni and GK begin to reference.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You also have to look at how cheap, how widely available and how efficient things have become in North America.
Food, housing, clothing, health care, education, transportation, etc. I would add representation to that. In America especially, the lower the income, the less one is represented. All these add to a greater and greater disparity between those that have and those that don't and move more people into the latter category. The U.K. Is heading this way as well. If Canada isn't, you are fortunate.
quote:Well, if Cruz wins you'll have your way.
Sober Preacher's Kid: Ahem, Canada has first dibs on the Lost Provinces.
quote:Um, most people don't do that.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
quote:Hmmm... I went to a movie, an opera, and live theatre in the past two weeks, and I'll be going to another play and two or three concerts in the next couple of weeks. No, live entertainment is not cheap, but I don't spend money on smart phones, cable television, sporting events...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Um, most people don't do that.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Clearly you haven't been to the movies lately, let alone the theater, symphony or opera.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Entertainment is cheap.
quote:I'm not quite sure whether Og meant that in a nuanced way; but lots of people don't have anywhere near the money and other resources they need for basic survival, let alone entertainment. And that increasingly applies to the middle class.
Buying stuff is easier (as long as you have some money) and takes less time.
quote:I don't know. My best friend is an elementary school teacher, nominally middle class, and for a while there she was selling what few somewhat valuable things she had (family antiques, Native American collectibles) to meet her expenses. She got some relief when she finally paid off her car and her student loans. No TV, no cell phone.
Originally posted by simontoad:
If people in the middle class don't have enough money for basic survival, are they still middle class?
quote:I work with the homeless in our city, and many/most have cell phones, many of them smart phones. It's honestly not a luxury-- they depend on them for many of the social services they receive. The shelter that I help run is only open when the weather hits certain markers (temperature, precipitation)-- they call a number to get a recorded message to know if it is open or not. When they get into the system where they start receiving aid, their social worker will have them calling all over the place to check on section 8 housing, get that mental health eval they're requiring, etc. They will need access to websites for various agencies or to apply for jobs.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I live in a city where the smartphone is ubiquitous in all social strata above the homeless.
quote:The first turn of phrase makes it sound to me as though the BBC think him securing the nomination is definitely the best option. The second makes it sound as though the front-runner ought to get the nomination and that any other outcome of the convention would be an unusual, unseemly challenge, like "contesting" a will; whereas up until now I've only ever heard anyone talk about a "brokered" or "negotiated" convention, which sounds a lot more neutral to my ears.
Mr Trump leads the Republican race, but there are concerns that he could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals have pinned their hopes on a contested convention.
quote:Here's what that link says now:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This (European) morning's BBC website coverage of the Wisconsin primary includes the following (emphasis mine):quote:The first turn of phrase makes it sound to me as though the BBC think him securing the nomination is definitely the best option. The second makes it sound as though the front-runner ought to get the nomination and that any other outcome of the convention would be an unusual, unseemly challenge, like "contesting" a will; whereas up until now I've only ever heard anyone talk about a "brokered" or "negotiated" convention, which sounds a lot more neutral to my ears.
Mr Trump leads the Republican race, but there are concerns that he could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals have pinned their hopes on a contested convention.
Am I the only one to think this nugget sounds oddly biased?
quote:In your quoted text, I think the "there are concerns" part is bad (why not say who has concerns?), but "contested convention" seems a pretty innocuous (and widely used) phrase. If no one has a majority before the convention, we don't know if the result will be "brokered" or "negotiated", but it certainly will be "contested".
Mr Trump leads the race, but could fall short of the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination.
Mr Trump's rivals hope for a brokered convention where voting among candidates would start from scratch.
quote:Most of those I know with smart phones are newly homeless (i.e. in the last year), the phone may have been acquired prior to losing job/becoming disabled/ whatever circumstances led to their economic downfall. The bill would be paid the same way any other bill is paid-- out of benefits, money scrounged thru begging or day labor, selling off other possessions, etc. And of course, with all of us, people will vary in what they prioritize when things get tough. Sometimes the homeless make financial choices that seem odd to us (e.g. paying $150/month for a storage unit containing the odd sad remains of their former life when they'd probably be better off saving for an apt) but there are reasons behind the behavior-- some good, some illogical. But prioritizing a phone, even a smart phone, does make sense to me, given it's usefulness in a variety of situations-- both for accessing services and for emergencies (which are going to pop up a lot more often on the street).
Originally posted by Golden Key:
cliffdweller--
Who pays for the phone and service? Even with the cheapest pre-paid, you've still got to acquire a phone. A non-smartphone can be had for under $20 bucks, around here; but IME they can't really access the Web.
Thx.
quote:I find something a little worrying about the process described therein. It feels a bit strange to ask the entire country to vote on who will be the candidate only to have the decision made by a small group of delegates who, once elected, have no accountability to their electorate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting strategy:
"Stop-Trump group found Trump’s weakness and is using it." (MSNBC)
quote:"Contested convention" is fairly widely used in my experience, or at least as widely used as something not often seen can be. "Brokered convention" implies that there is some "broker" behind the scenes adjudicating (and possibly manipulating) the outcome. In other words, the "smoke filled room" of yesteryear. If one thing has become clear in this primary election cycle, it's that the Republican party has no one who could reasonably fill the role of convention broker.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, I'm glad at least one copy editor has seen fit to make changes to what I spotted.
Maybe "a contested convention" is widely used and I'd not noticed it, but semantically it suggests the outcome of the convention has been decided and then disputed after the fact, rather than being negotiated from start to finish (which is as I understand is what can happen if no outright winner has emerged by then).
quote:Possibly true, but in a country that uses the Electoral College to choose the President it seems a bit late to be worried about that sort of thing.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I find something a little worrying about the process described therein. It feels a bit strange to ask the entire country to vote on who will be the candidate only to have the decision made by a small group of delegates who, once elected, have no accountability to their electorate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting strategy:
"Stop-Trump group found Trump’s weakness and is using it." (MSNBC)
quote:Isn't that exactly what's being envisaged here? Working the delegate selection procedure to give the Republican nomination to someone other than the plurality delegate holder (presumed to be Donald Trump at this point)?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I guess it worries me because, while in this case it would be done to prevent Trump from getting the nomination even if he gets a plurality of the popular vote, I can envisage other cases where it could be done to give Trump (or someone like him) the nomination even if the plurality of votes went against him.
quote:Yes, absolutely. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent to be happy with such a process if it gives you the result you want this time, because next time it may go the other way.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that exactly what's being envisaged here? Working the delegate selection procedure to give the Republican nomination to someone other than the plurality delegate holder (presumed to be Donald Trump at this point)?
quote:Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't thought of "contested" in the sense of "there actually being a contest", more in the sense of "the original outcome being called into dispute", no doubt a leak from my French. It had also occurred to me that, as you suggest, that disputing even the majority delegate-holder might not be very equitable, even if it's desirable.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Contested convention" is fairly widely used in my experience, or at least as widely used as something not often seen can be. "Brokered convention" implies that there is some "broker" behind the scenes adjudicating (and possibly manipulating) the outcome. In other words, the "smoke filled room" of yesteryear.
quote:For most states (and other jurisdictions), delegates to the Republican National Convention are legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate to whom they were assigned during their state's primary or caucus, but only on the first ballot. If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock. (Another way around this would be to allow victory with a plurality rather than a majority, but the Republican party doesn't seem interested in having a nominee who was supported by less than half their convention.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I'm probably betraying my utter lack of knowledge of Republican Party candidate selection history. For all I know they've used such a process dozens of times already and this would in no way set a new precedent.
quote:One other way would be to say that delegates pledged to the candidate who has the plurality in the first ballot must stay with that candidate, but the others can change. It would still allow for the possibility that the most popular candidate would lose, but it would need everyone else to unite behind a single candidate.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One other way would be to say that delegates pledged to the candidate who has the plurality in the first ballot must stay with that candidate, but the others can change.
quote:Those might make sense if one were designing a system from scratch, but the current convention system is an adaptation of an earlier system where delegates were simply appointed by the various bosses and powers-that-be in state parties and weren't bound by anything other than however much loyalty they felt to the instructions they received from their state party.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah, you really need some sort of weighted vote system.
quote:Or the convention picking someone who wasn't even running in the primaries and received the votes of no one. (Paul Ryan is often floated as a possibility in this regard.) There are some rules about this, but those can be re-written by the rules committee which meets just prior to the convention.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With every delegate being free in the second ballot you could have the insane situation where the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote doesn't get a single delegate in the second ballot.
quote:You make it sound like a papal election with an extra twist.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For most states (and other jurisdictions), delegates to the Republican National Convention are legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate to whom they were assigned during their state's primary or caucus, but only on the first ballot. If no one has an outright majority on the first ballot delegates are allowed to switch their affiliation on subsequent ballots. It has to be this way or there wouldn't be any way to resolve a deadlock. (Another way around this would be to allow victory with a plurality rather than a majority, but the Republican party doesn't seem interested in having a nominee who was supported by less than half their convention.) ...
quote:Theoretically yes. However, as I noted eight and a half months ago(!), Reince Priebus has shown himself to be singularly ineffectual during this primary season. If he has the power/inclination to "broker" the Republican nominating process, what's he been waiting for? Mr. Priebus may be the one listed as officially "running" the Republican National Convention, but I have a hard time seeing him exerting any sort of control or influence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
Wouldn't this guy have the responsibility of brokering the convention if necessary?
quote:Depends on what you mean by "power". If you mean "direct the selection of the presidential nominee", then the answer is probably 'never'. However, a strong party head can significantly affect the electoral fortunes and political success of a party, even today. The most recent example that comes to mind is Howard Dean and his fifty-state strategy. This strategy led to strong Democratic victories in the 2006 mid-terms, crafting the legislative majorities that President Obama would use to advance his agenda during his first two years in office. It's not too much of a stretch to argue that without Dean's efforts as DNC chair the Affordable Care Act might never have passed.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How long has it been since a DNC or RNC chairperson has wielded much power? The party chairs have seemed like little more than fundraisers in chief for qui[t]e some time.
quote:Sure. He hasn't done much arm-twisting so far - well at least visibly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Theoretically yes. However, as I noted eight and a half months ago(!), Reince Priebus has shown himself to be singularly ineffectual during this primary season. If he has the power/inclination to "broker" the Republican nominating process, what's he been waiting for? Mr. Priebus may be the one listed as officially "running" the Republican National Convention, but I have a hard time seeing him exerting any sort of control or influence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
Wouldn't this guy have the responsibility of brokering the convention if necessary?
quote:Especially with a Prime Minister who is trying to dig himself out of a hole, regarding overseas financial gains.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was annoyed enough recently to find out the actual percentages for the last UK election:
The current Conservative Government was elected by a 36.9% vote of the 66.4% turnout. That works out at 24% of the electorate choosing this Conservative Government, 42% voted against them and another 34% didn't bother to show up to vote (probably because they, like me, are eligible to vote in a safe seat where their vote does not count.)
This Government's mandate based on 24% of the vote doesn't look that secure.
quote:It's the 36.9% figure that matters, not the 24% one. We have to assume, and are entitled to do so, that those who don't vote either don't care who governs the country, or would have voted in the same proportions as those that voted.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was annoyed enough recently to find out the actual percentages for the last UK election:
The current Conservative Government was elected by a 36.9% vote of the 66.4% turnout. That works out at 24% of the electorate choosing this Conservative Government, 42% voted against them and another 34% didn't bother to show up to vote (probably because they, like me, are eligible to vote in a safe seat where their vote does not count.)
This Government's mandate based on 24% of the vote doesn't look that secure.
quote:"We have a mandate" is one of the most overused, and incorrectly used, phrases in politics. I do, however, feel obliged to mention in this context that I don't see a significant difference between 49% of the people support X and 51% of the people support X. In both cases, "X" is supported by about half the people and opposed by about half the people; I don't really consider the question of whether it's a little more than half or a little less than half to be interesting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
36.9% has given the present administration a majority of seats, but it is not a mandate. It must be pointed out, every time they say 'we won the election', that any electoral system that can give a party the illusion of power in this way is defective. They haven't got a mandate.
quote:36.9% is nowhere near either 49% or 51%.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:"We have a mandate" is one of the most overused, and incorrectly used, phrases in politics. I do, however, feel obliged to mention in this context that I don't see a significant difference between 49% of the people support X and 51% of the people support X. In both cases, "X" is supported by about half the people and opposed by about half the people; I don't really consider the question of whether it's a little more than half or a little less than half to be interesting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
36.9% has given the present administration a majority of seats, but it is not a mandate. It must be pointed out, every time they say 'we won the election', that any electoral system that can give a party the illusion of power in this way is defective. They haven't got a mandate.
quote:It's a tangent I know - there has "always" been a program to provide free phone service for the poor. In landline days the bill often came with a notice who to call if you need free service. Now the feds sponsors a free cell phone and free service (I think each state has options as to the extent of the program). Its a limited service, maybe 200 minutes a month, which is not enough for an active job hunt or for staying in contact with family but far better than no phone. Must be on a government program for the poor like Medicaid, or Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc. More info
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Most of those I know with smart phones are newly homeless (i.e. in the last year), the phone may have been acquired prior to losing job/becoming disabled/ whatever.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Who pays for the phone and service?
The long term homeless (5 or more years on the street) I know are less likely to have phones of any sort-- that may be generational but even more probably has to do with just the shockingly rapid deterioration that happens on the streets, and the likelihood that something like a phone will be stolen.
quote:Whatever the percentage the term "mandate" is inappropriate. A mandate is an direction regarding a particular issue, such as a war, or, topically, whether to remain (or leave) the EU. It isn't a general "Over to you" instruction.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:36.9% is nowhere near either 49% or 51%.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:"We have a mandate" is one of the most overused, and incorrectly used, phrases in politics. I do, however, feel obliged to mention in this context that I don't see a significant difference between 49% of the people support X and 51% of the people support X. In both cases, "X" is supported by about half the people and opposed by about half the people; I don't really consider the question of whether it's a little more than half or a little less than half to be interesting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
36.9% has given the present administration a majority of seats, but it is not a mandate. It must be pointed out, every time they say 'we won the election', that any electoral system that can give a party the illusion of power in this way is defective. They haven't got a mandate.
quote:So much of this election reminds me of the movie The Senator Was Indiscreet (1947), but in response to that particular link, let me quote from the movie:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other election news, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan apparently felt the need to formally announce that he will continue not running for president.
quote:
Houlihan: [to Ashton] No member of the party has the right to deny he is not a candidate unless he is a candidate.
quote:
Lew Gibson: [to Poppy] You can't go around quoting politicians correctly! That's dirty journalism and you know it!
quote:Relevant political analysis from Publius Servilius Casca Longus:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point that the Speaker also firmly and definitely announced that he had no intention of becoming Speaker of the House. I have here a grain of salt the size of a Volkswagen...
quote:
I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown; -- yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets; -- and, as I told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by: and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar; for he swounded and fell down at it: and for mine own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
quote:But we all know what happened to Caesar.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Relevant political analysis from Publius Servilius Casca Longus:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point that the Speaker also firmly and definitely announced that he had no intention of becoming Speaker of the House. I have here a grain of salt the size of a Volkswagen...
quote:
I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown; -- yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets; -- and, as I told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by: and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar; for he swounded and fell down at it: and for mine own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Relevant political analysis from Publius Servilius Casca Longus:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point that the Speaker also firmly and definitely announced that he had no intention of becoming Speaker of the House. I have here a grain of salt the size of a Volkswagen...
quote:
I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown; -- yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets; -- and, as I told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by: and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar; for he swounded and fell down at it: and for mine own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
quote:Speaker Ryan's humility would be more convincing if last year he had not been emphatically denying that he in any way was willing to become Speaker. And yet, here we are.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
'Yond Croesos hath a lean and hungry look'
It is said that the Mennonites when they gather for prayer to select a new leader are always impressed by the most modest and most reluctant candidate. They value humility in potential leaders above any other virtue. They look for good and faithful servants of God and the people.
In the Western democracies these days, political ambition is assumed to be the prime motivation. Anything else is thought to be feigned. The assumption is that an apparently reluctant candidate is just setting out their stall to allow themselves to be dragged forward if/when the time is right. Politicians don't do humility any more, do they?
quote:Fun and games and literary allusions aside, I suspect Paul Ryan is being sincere this time around. He went beyond the typical denial to endorse an alternative course of action (pick one of the candidates who has been running in the primaries). If I had to guess I'd say that he sees the Republican 2016 presidential campaign as an enormous clusterfuck (a political term of art, I believe) and wants no part of it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Speaker Ryan's humility would be more convincing if last year he had not been emphatically denying that he in any way was willing to become Speaker. And yet, here we are.
quote:If you have never witnessed it, the Mennonite tendency towards humility and modesty is something else. My Grandmother grew up in a Schweizer community in central Kansas, and her focus on modesty could be very frustrating. It was hard to find good pictures of her because she would always look away and waive her hand at you as soon as the camera appeared; she didn't see why anyone would want a picture of her. Any thanks or compliments were also met with a dismissing, waiving hand. When I graduated from law school, she commented that I probably knew so much more about the law than she could ever understand. I had to remind her that she had worked as a court clerk for 20 years and knew much more about the actual practice than I could possibly have picked up in three years of classes. You could sometimes get her to admit things she was proud of in quiet moments, which is what kept it from seeming totally unhealthy, but it was apparent that she had always been taught to not think too highly of herself.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is said that the Mennonites when they gather for prayer to select a new leader are always impressed by the most modest and most reluctant candidate. They value humility in potential leaders above any other virtue. They look for good and faithful servants of God and the people.
quote:He's a young man. May well be thinking 2020. Gambling (if it is that much of a gamble) on a coming electoral disaster for the GOP candidate producing a proper and heart-searching postmortem. Leading to promotion of one of the non-participants.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Fun and games and literary allusions aside, I suspect Paul Ryan is being sincere this time around. He went beyond the typical denial to endorse an alternative course of action (pick one of the candidates who has been running in the primaries). If I had to guess I'd say that he sees the Republican 2016 presidential campaign as an enormous clusterfuck (a political term of art, I believe) and wants no part of it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Speaker Ryan's humility would be more convincing if last year he had not been emphatically denying that he in any way was willing to become Speaker. And yet, here we are.
quote:Doesn't the Republican Party have rules that prevent the nomination of someone who goes into the convention with zero delegates?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Fun and games and literary allusions aside, I suspect Paul Ryan is being sincere this time around. He went beyond the typical denial to endorse an alternative course of action (pick one of the candidates who has been running in the primaries). If I had to guess I'd say that he sees the Republican 2016 presidential campaign as an enormous clusterfuck (a political term of art, I believe) and wants no part of it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Speaker Ryan's humility would be more convincing if last year he had not been emphatically denying that he in any way was willing to become Speaker. And yet, here we are.
quote:Only some of the Old Order do that. Most of us, who actually are like the rest of you but for a bit of theology, usually choose whichever living breathing person the nominating committee (or whatever its called) brings forward. The more earnest prayer is usually for wisdom for that group.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
'Yond Croesos hath a lean and hungry look'
It is said that the Mennonites when they gather for prayer to select a new leader are always impressed by the most modest and most reluctant candidate. They value humility in potential leaders above any other virtue. They look for good and faithful servants of God and the people.
,,
quote:Sign up for France's "primary for the people", then!
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
This reminds me of Douglas Adams’ comments on how the people who want power are usually the ones least suited to wield it. And the people who are suitably humble and sensible for the job don’t want it. Summed up as “in other words, people are a problem”.
quote:Now if I can only remember where the right hand mouse button is on my iPad...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Right hand mouse click gives you the translation option.
quote:I did wonder! Unfortunately both the French and English versions share the same url. Isn't there some iPad trick keyboard sequence in these cases?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Now if I can only remember where the right hand mouse button is on my iPad...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Right hand mouse click gives you the translation option.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Doesn't the Republican Party have rules that prevent the nomination of someone who goes into the convention with zero delegates?
quote:The pre-2012 rule was that the only candidates to be considered for nomination were those with the support of delegates from at least three states. I believe this was a holdover from the early, pre-primary days of conventions and was put in place to keep "favorite son" nominees (a state would nominate some locally popular politician with no support outside his home state in order to raise that candidate's national profile and to engage in delegate vote trading) from gumming up the work of the convention. Because Ron Paul's supporters had a reputation of using parliamentary procedures to hijack caucuses and conventions the Romney delegates on the rules committee changed the rule from "at least one delegate from at least three states" to "a majority of delegates from at least eight states". A bit of overkill, but there it is.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The rules get re-written to some degree at the beginning of each convention, and to the extent that such a rule exists, it could be removed. (I think the Romney people put one in last time about a minimum number of states won before you can be nominated on the first or second ballot to avoid a Ron Paul revolution, and if that is still in place, it prevents Kasich or Ryan from getting in for a while.)
quote:Not just unpledged delegates. Cruz has been working to get his loyalists selected as pledged delegates, too. In part because they're only pledged on the first ballot, but also because the more delegates you have the easier it is to stack the rules committee and credentials committee and other convention panels that are normally irrelevant in a modern convention with your loyalists. After all, if Romney loyalists can jigger the rules in 2012, there's no reason another candidate's loyalists can't do the same in 2016.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The other thing that Cruz is apparently doing, aside from running around locking up unpledged delegates, is trying to load the rules committee in his favor, to prevent some unannounced candidate from slipping in an becoming the nominee.
quote:The Convention runs from July 18 to 21. Do we know which night the fireworks, I mean nomination, will take place? (I'll definitely plan to spend the evening on the Ship!)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must have a party here, on the night of the GOP convention. Virtual popcorn for all! alas, there is no smiley for this.
quote:Dye it red, and here's the guy throwing it around
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must have a party here, on the night of the GOP convention. Virtual popcorn for all! alas, there is no smiley for this.
and here['s the one catching it on his/her tongue . And here's the one who has to vacuum it up in the morning.
quote:But how can we dye it blue for the Democratic Convention?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Dye it red, and here's the guy throwing it around
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must have a party here, on the night of the GOP convention. Virtual popcorn for all! alas, there is no smiley for this.
quote:The winner-take-all system electoral system in the U.S. is optimized for the existence of exactly two political parties. Not necessarily the parties that exist today, but two parties (no more and no less) of some description.
Originally posted by Gwai:
So for people who like the idea of having more than two parties, what do you think about Trump running as an independent? Obviously it would be terrible for the Republican nominee, but would it have any chance of birthing a third party?
quote:I certainly hope that his personality is key to the traction the message has gotten. I don't know how many people could pull off the "say something outlandish to guarantee disproportionate media coverage" strategy.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't think so, because Trump's campaign is so dependent on him as an individual. It's been noted that he has very few clear policies or even positions. He might well run as a third-party candidate but, rather as with Ross Perot, that party would be unlikely to outlive Trump's own political career.
(Unless he won, of course!)
quote:While it may be the exact opposite of what most Christians profess, I have to say it suits him. Well done, Mr. Trump!
“Is there a favorite Bible verse or Bible story that has informed your thinking or your character through life, sir?” asked host Bob Lonsberry on WHAM 1180 AM.
Trump responded, “Well, I think many. I mean, when we get into the Bible, I think many, so many. And some people, look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. That’s not a particularly nice thing. But you know, if you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean, when you see what’s going on with our country, how people are taking advantage of us, and how they scoff at us and laugh at us. And they laugh at our face, and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking the health of our country. And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.”
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The New York Post just endorsed Trump.
quote:Because it's the Post? (The New York Post is owen by News Corp, and is the closest thing we have to a British style tabloid daily in the States. It is known for selling papers by stirring up the masses.)
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The New York Post just endorsed Trump.
quote:Rupert Murdoch owned it from 1976 to 1988. Need I say more?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The New York Post just endorsed Trump.
quote:Tells you something about his confused mental processes. The parts of his brain which construct sentences do seem subject to some kind of random selection process coupled with imperfect memory. Early signs of Alzheimers?
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
"I think what I want to do is that I want to talk just for a second--I wrote this out and it's very close to my heart because I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down on 7-11, down at the World Trade Center right after it came down..." Donald Trump
You know, if you are going to suggest that you'd be a great president because you watched other people do real work, the least you could do is get the date right.
quote:No, I don't think so. I feel that this way of talking is quite deliberate. It's part of his game.
Barnabas62: The parts of his brain which construct sentences do seem subject to some kind of random selection process coupled with imperfect memory. Early signs of Alzheimers?
quote:It's great for twitter, and given that the platform he is running on, attacking him for it just makes the attacker sound elitist.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Studied, feigned and insulting ignorance is a part of his "appeal"? Makes him sound more like "an ordinary Joe"?
quote:Hmmm. Maybe.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, I don't think so. I feel that this way of talking is quite deliberate. It's part of his game.
Barnabas62: The parts of his brain which construct sentences do seem subject to some kind of random selection process coupled with imperfect memory. Early signs of Alzheimers?
quote:That's because most of his supporters can't tell the difference between a convenience store and a major skyscraper.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He confused 9/11 with a convenience store, in a way that quite possibly could be perceived as insulting, days before the Primary in the state that was most affected by this event. And he still won.
quote:The question for me is when should Bernie pull out? I hope that he will do this at the best time for Hill, but I'm not sure when that might be. Is it better to stay in while the republicans have a contest so as to keep the media interested in the Democtatic nominee, or to go soon and allow Hill an extended lap of honor?
Hillary Clinton has ~81% of the delegates needed to secure her party's nomination (2,384) if you include superdelegates in her total, or ~61% of the way there without relying on superdelegates. Clinton would need to gain 33% of the remaining pledged delegates, combined with her already assigned delegates and the superdelegates who have declared in her favor, in order to win the Democratic nomination.
Sanders needs to win ~82% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to win, or get some of the remaining 196 superdelegates to come over to his side. The polling for Maryland and Pennsylvania (the only states primarying next week for which reliable polling exists) doesn't look favorable to Sanders.
quote:Funny!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Good for a laugh.
"Cartoons: Republican Party Is A Mess"--16 cartoons (The Mercury News).
quote:Yep. The "big tent" of Reagan was always more rhetoric than reality anyway. Remember that the so-called "Reagan Democrats" were largely Dixiecrats upset about their previous party's embrace of civil rights. The only difference is that now the GOP has a candidate willing to say out loud what had previously been communicated via dog whistles, which they seem to find invigorating.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Funny!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Good for a laugh.
"Cartoons: Republican Party Is A Mess"--16 cartoons (The Mercury News).
The small tent for "Angry White Dudes" hit a spot for me. The WASP constituency has become the AWD constituency?
quote:Unlikely, for several of reasons.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Any chance Sanders will get veep ?
quote:A connection to the South? Maybe a former First Lady of Arkansas?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The veep choice has also been traditionally the moment to balance the ticket. Hillary does not need another white Northeastern liberal. She needs a Southerner or someone from a Western state.
quote:I guess it's a bit like advertising. There may be no objective proof of its positive value, but you may feel you can't afford not to do it. Probably on the grounds that a ticket perceived to be "unbalanced" by the pundits might produce some kind of negative reaction. That's the problem with "received wisdom". It plays on the fear factor, it looks like the "safe play".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like a lot of conventional wisdom, the idea of a geographically-balanced ticket (aside from the Constitution's requirement that the President and Vice-President be from different states) seems to be based on the somewhat circular thinking that it's what everyone believes.
quote:But he makes beer!
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
At least in Colorado, there is talk that our Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, might be a possible pick. He's a generally unoffensive, likeable guy who managed to hold his seat in 2014, an election in which the Republicans swept the other state wide races, even taking out our incumbent Democrat Senator.
I'm just not that confident that he would be that exciting to the rest of the country.
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
...or have the Democrats got beyond that to seeking the best person for the job?
quote:But "the job" in this case is beating the other guys, not being President or Vice President. Electability seems to be the only qualification when choosing a running mate.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
...or have the Democrats got beyond that to seeking the best person for the job?
Getting the best person for the job has never entered the equation for the American electoral process!!
quote:Why? For his skill in lying us into the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh!
Even the suggestion has me throwing up my hands in horror Brenda! I have a soft spot for Colin Powell. More than that, I think he's the best President the US has never had. Honestly, I go all weak-kneed and gushy whenever he's mentioned.
quote:In practice, yes - I suspect even the current Congress would find it easy to impeach a sitting VP who murdered his president.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Under English law, if you murder someone, you are normally barred from inheriting from them. Does a similar principle apply in the US if you are the Vice President and do away with your President?
quote:An unkind person would suggest that Mr Trump would be inviting all sorts of possible scenarios to terminate his presidency if General Powell were VP. The same ungenerous souls once suggested that Dan Quayle's holding that office guaranteed widespread prayers for George Bush (père)'s health.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is mostly true. However, Sarah Palin did one thing for us -- she made it clear that the second person on the ticket had better be at least dimly credible as President. You can't just select your Cousin Arnie and fly with it. Her looniness, combined with McCain's age, was a genuine danger to the nation.
And thus The Donald could vastly increase his gravitas and credibility (I mean, there's nowhere to go but up) by selecting a superb, unimpeachably ideal veep. Colin Powell would be perfect, except that Powell is a canny old soldier and is not going to put his head into this meat grinder.
quote:It was suggested about Spiro Agnew as well -- that there was hesitation to impeach Nixon if it meant being stuck with Agnew... but then the Agnew situation took care of itself (unless the political demise of Agnew was engineered to clear the way for impeaching Nixon).
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
An unkind person would suggest that Mr Trump would be inviting all sorts of possible scenarios to terminate his presidency if General Powell were VP. The same ungenerous souls once suggested that Dan Quayle's holding that office guaranteed widespread prayers for George Bush (père)'s health.
quote:They've probably seen some forecasts which suggest that they will deny Trump more delegates by this approach. What they want (what a heck of lot of influential people in the GOP now want) is a contested conference. They are now saying that, and will do anything they can to deny Trump a winning majority before the conference. Trump says it's a desperation throw. I think it might work.
Originally posted by Huia:
Yeah, Snoopy would be good. The US Airforce could all fly Sopwith Camels
I've just read that Kasich and Cruz will not be standing against each other in some states. Will this make much of a difference? (or are they states that Trump was expected to win anyway?). Has any other candidate had the others acting in collusion against them like this before?
Huia
quote:Every four years the media, usually prompted by campaign consultants, picks out one rather arbitrary and somewhat bizarrely-defined demographic ('soccer moms', 'security dads', etc.) that's almost always within the suburban white middle- or working-class and declares that those are the voters whose opinion is critical to the presidential election in November.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Washington POST interviewed 'Walmart Moms' (not sure what this demographic involves but I know I am not one) and learned that for them Trump is second only to the Father and the Son. Sometimes I despair of my fellow woman, I really do.
I've read my limit of free Washington Post Articles this month. Go Lianne!quote:Talk about creative marketing. Invent a demographic that is defined by people who shop at your store, drop a few news releases to make the demographic go viral, and sit back as self-identifying "Walmart moms" reinforce their position as political kingmakers by shopping at your store. F'ing brilliant.
Walmart moms are defined as women who have children younger than 18 at home and have gone to the store at least once in the past month. The focus groups — the two pollsters did another one with swing moms in suburban Philadelphia — were funded by Walmart.
quote:I will always believe that the Gereral was misled about Iraq.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Why? For his skill in lying us into the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh!
Even the suggestion has me throwing up my hands in horror Brenda! I have a soft spot for Colin Powell. More than that, I think he's the best President the US has never had. Honestly, I go all weak-kneed and gushy whenever he's mentioned.
quote:Hmm, swinging Moms you say? Maybe I should go visit that Utah thread.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
From the linked article:
quote:Talk about creative marketing. Invent a demographic that is defined by people who shop at your store, drop a few news releases to make the demographic go viral, and sit back as self-identifying "Walmart moms" reinforce their position as political kingmakers by shopping at your store. F'ing brilliant.
Walmart moms are defined as women who have children younger than 18 at home and have gone to the store at least once in the past month. The focus groups — the two pollsters did another one with swing moms in suburban Philadelphia — were funded by Walmart.
quote:Why exactly would you believe that? Remember that Colin Powell's first politically notable job was as a young major investigating the Mỹ Lai massacre. I believe young Major Powell dismissed the whole thing with the comment "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal Division soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent". Being willing to carry water for whatever depraved thing his superiors expected of him was a consistent pattern throughout Powell's career.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:I will always believe that the General was misled about Iraq.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why? For his skill in lying us into the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
quote:A man with all the access to information available to the Secretary of State who could still be misled into such a disaster would surely be too credulous a fool to be a good president.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:I will always believe that the Gereral was misled about Iraq.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Why? For his skill in lying us into the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh!
Even the suggestion has me throwing up my hands in horror Brenda! I have a soft spot for Colin Powell. More than that, I think he's the best President the US has never had. Honestly, I go all weak-kneed and gushy whenever he's mentioned.
Poor Colin.quote:You should read more before you re-post, perhaps. Powell was in-country, not in the rear or back in the US. He was either complicit or negligent, same as with the WMD issue. At best both actions show a lack of integrity that might be understandable in the circumstances, but not acceptable.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sorry I should read stuff before I post.
quote:Seems like a classic example of "Reagan's Bind".
Originally posted by simontoad:
As for the WMD stuff, I have it on good authority that the General was in the bathroom at the relevant time.
quote:I'm pretty sure "oops, I got thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed for no good reason because of my inattention and incompetence" counts as choosing the second fork of Reagan's bind.
"Reagan's Bind" describes the conundrum in which one is unable to explain or defend one's actions except by ascribing them to either: A) malicious intent; or B) glaring stupidity and/or incompetence.
To be caught in Reagan's Bind is like being pinned in wrestling, or checkmated in chess. Actually, in terms of chess, it's a bit more like realizing that the knight placing your king in check is simultaneously threatening your queen.
I have called this "Reagan's Bind" in keeping with the current trend of naming everything after the 40th president, but also because Ronald Reagan provided the most spectacular example of this during the Iran-Contra scandal of his second term.
The American people were shocked to be presented with hard evidence that members of the Reagan administration were not only "negotiating with terrorists," but actually selling them weapons. What's more, the proceeds were being used to fund other terrorists in a flagrant violation of U.S. law.
The president's options were binary. Either he knew about these arms sales — in which case he had violated the law and his oath and was therefore unfit for office; or else this massive operation was going on right under his nose at the White House but he was oblivious — in which he was so astoundingly incompetent that he was probably still unfit for office.
The classic example of Reagan's Bind.
quote:I stand corrected.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Ted Cruz has announced Carly Fiorina as his running mate should he win the Republican presidential nomination. I don't remember any candidate doing this before an election before (except a President running for re-election). Does anyone remember otherwise?
quote:According to CNN:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm sure Trump won't have anything disparaging to say about the timing...
quote:
Trump called the pick "a desperate attempt to save a failing campaign by an all talk, no action politician."
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by RuthW:
She copes with having the shit kicked out of her as the price of admission for any woman breaking new ground in the public sphere. Accepting it is not the same thing. I hope to God she doesn't accept it.
quote:Yes. And unfortunately our election cycle seems to be full of precisely that. I find it being pulled out in my own heart-- the knee-jerk urge to repost that snarky meme, the righteous outrage that borders on a sick glee at the latest ridiculous thing said by the Trumpster. We are being played in the worst sort of way for a very very dark purpose.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by RuthW:
She copes with having the shit kicked out of her as the price of admission for any woman breaking new ground in the public sphere. Accepting it is not the same thing. I hope to God she doesn't accept it.
Also, I worry about anyone who rejoices in the shit being kicked out of anyone else, whatever that person's faults or imperfections may be. The kickers and the rejoicing onlookers reflect the kind of lynch-mob mentality which provides space and justification for all sorts and kinds of evil.
quote:Trump is looking better than he did two weeks ago, but that's what happens when you get two weeks of primaries in the kinds of states where you generally do well. I'd put money down on Cruz winning Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. It's not as if Cruz hasn't won a few elections, and those states seem to match the "feel" of the kind of state where Cruz does really well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that neither one has been particularly effective against Trump to date there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly start winning elections.
quote:By all accounts I've heard, Cruz is very much disliked by almost everyone who knows him. I don't understand how he's gotten so far in politics.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for Cruz from former House speaker John Boehner.
[Devil]
quote:Yes, that's what happens when you win elections. It improves your position within the electoral process. I'm not sure this is a particularly profound observation.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Trump is looking better than he did two weeks ago, but that's what happens when you get two weeks of primaries in the kinds of states where you generally do well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that neither one has been particularly effective against Trump to date there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly start winning elections.
quote:Between them, these three states control a total of 92 Republican delegates. They're also, conveniently, winner-take-all. But even if we stipulate Ted Cruz winning all 92 of these delegates we're left with the problem of how he (or John Kasich) picks up another 165 delegates from the states remaining (IN 57, WV 34, OR 28, WA 44, CA 172, NJ 51, NM 24). And that assumes none of the 63 still-undeclared delegates decides to support Trump. To guard against that possibility Cruz and/or Kasich would have to pick up 228 delegates beyond the 92 you've already stipulated for Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'd put money down on Cruz winning Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. It's not as if Cruz hasn't won a few elections, and those states seem to match the "feel" of the kind of state where Cruz does really well.
quote:Was this really necessary?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure this is a particularly profound observation.
quote:But then again, both Trump and Cruz are hated by large numbers of Republicans.
Originally posted by Twilight:
She's, so hated by Republicans that she's the last person to bring the two sides together.
quote:I would expect a Democratic Senator not to have the wool pulled over her eyes by Bush. I would also expect her decision to have been based on something larger than tender feelings. 9-11 was a criminal act, not a declaration of war and should have been responded to with police action. Sending troops to war over that terrorist act resulted in another 3000 American deaths and further terrorist acts. Her policy as Secretary of State has always been hawkish, time and again believing that American military force will solve all problems. Viet Nam should have put paid to that idea once and for all.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A lot of people had the wool pulled over their eyes by Bush and Cheney. Also, Hillary was representing New York. 9-11 was and is a tender subject in the Empire State.
That vote was in the past, 15 years ago. I am more interested in the future. Hillary is the only candidate who sounds even dimly sane.
quote:But you've already got a President like that! And look how obstructive your politicians have been about things that ought to be obvious like health care.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Until now I've been secretly hoping someone would pop up out of nowhere with a rousing speech about exactly what he/she would do if elected and everyone would get on board for the most popular president in fifty years. ....
quote:I think the objections - or at least the serious ones - center on the idea that they make war much more abstract, and in doing so may make waging war much easier. (rather than some notion that drone-warfare 'just isn't cricket'). Additionally, there are ways in which the 'drone war' is being conducted that make it problematic - though these tend to apply to just war more broadly.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Martin I've never been able to see the ethical objection to drones. Ethical objection to war, yes, that's understandable. Ethical objection to killing the wrong people by a mistake, of course, but that applies to all weapons.
quote:What are the odds for a record low turnout?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:But then again, both Trump and Cruz are hated by large numbers of Republicans.
Originally posted by Twilight:
She's, so hated by Republicans that she's the last person to bring the two sides together.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...Obama has been a very safe US president, for Americans.
quote:Considering the 60,000 deaths of US personnel in Vietnam, the over 2000 deaths from Iraq or the 4500 in Afghanistan, yes.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...Obama has been a very safe US president, for Americans.
I assume you mean other than the Americans he has killed with drones without so much as a whiff of due process?
Including 16 year olds?
quote:I think this kind of objection vastly underestimates American willingness to use military force of whatever form.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think the objections - or at least the serious ones - center on the idea that they make war much more abstract, and in doing so may make waging war much easier. (rather than some notion that drone-warfare 'just isn't cricket').
Originally posted by Enoch:
Martin I've never been able to see the ethical objection to drones. Ethical objection to war, yes, that's understandable. Ethical objection to killing the wrong people by a mistake, of course, but that applies to all weapons.
quote:There are laws against military drones?
At the moment drones could be said to be violating both domestic (to the US) and international law.
quote:That hardly seems likely - none of the places where these drones are being used have any kind of effective air defense.
I suspect that were they to be replaced by manned aircraft these issues would be thrown into sharper relief - if only when the first pilot was captured.
quote:How is any of this specific to drones?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Also tangent]
The ethical consideration of drones strikes is that they provide an easy, if not lazy, solution to the problem of assassination, which (AIUI) is illegal under US law.
If you call it 'targeted killing' instead, you don't need to declare war - the US isn't at war with Syria or Pakistan - and you don't need to worry about the roughly 25 other innocent people who are going to die in the explosion that kills your target.
I'm struggling to think how this fits within a Christian concept of ethics.
quote:Because this is specifically how drones are used.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:How is any of this specific to drones?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Also tangent]
The ethical consideration of drones strikes is that they provide an easy, if not lazy, solution to the problem of assassination, which (AIUI) is illegal under US law.
If you call it 'targeted killing' instead, you don't need to declare war - the US isn't at war with Syria or Pakistan - and you don't need to worry about the roughly 25 other innocent people who are going to die in the explosion that kills your target.
I'm struggling to think how this fits within a Christian concept of ethics.
quote:I'm sorry that you think that one dead target and twenty five dead other people (average) per drone strike meets your criterion of a 'clean kill'. And since assassination, outside a formal declaration of war, is (again, AIUI) specifically illegal in the US, your point is moot.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, Doc Tor, but I think Dave W is right on this one.
The ethical question is whether it is legitimate to take somebody out. If it is, the means aren't really the issue unless they break the rules of war in some other way, e.g. gas. On that scale, if one has the ability to target a drone accurately, as a clean kill it would meet the test of suitable weaponry quite well.
If taking somebody out isn't legitimate, using one method rather than another doesn't change that.
quote:Well, it's how weapons are used.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because this is specifically how drones are used.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:How is any of this specific to drones?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Also tangent]
The ethical consideration of drones strikes is that they provide an easy, if not lazy, solution to the problem of assassination, which (AIUI) is illegal under US law.
If you call it 'targeted killing' instead, you don't need to declare war - the US isn't at war with Syria or Pakistan - and you don't need to worry about the roughly 25 other innocent people who are going to die in the explosion that kills your target.
I'm struggling to think how this fits within a Christian concept of ethics.
quote:and
No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. In the absence of such a statute, only Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing.
quote:
Even when it [Executive Order 12333] remains in effect, the two exceptions created by Presidents Reagan and Clinton have narrowed its scope by excluding deaths resulting from strikes on valid military targets or counter-terror operations.
quote:Can you elaborate on those ethical problems? Would it be less unethical to fire missiles at or drop bombs on the same targets from, say, an F-15E? What would you say are the key differences between those two approaches?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The ethical problem with drones first and foremost is their combination of (theoretical) "as if you were there" performance and the physical remoteness of the operator to the theatre in which they are used.
This is connected to the wider issue of the robotization of warfare; drones are not the only example, but they are one that bring it nicely into focus.
quote:No. However some of their uses constitute violations of international and/or national laws.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
There are laws against military drones?
quote:A largely specious remark - and in any case manned aircraft have been both shot down and crashed in regions in which drones are now operating.
That hardly seems likely - none of the places where these drones are being used have any kind of effective air defense.
quote:Which laws are those?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. However some of their uses constitute violations of international and/or national laws.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
There are laws against military drones?
quote:If they did have effective air defenses, the drones would be largely useless.
quote:A largely specious remark - and in any case manned aircraft have been both shot down and crashed in regions in which drones are now operating.
That hardly seems likely - none of the places where these drones are being used have any kind of effective air defense.
quote:I think Brenda Clough is right that this is a tangent which I unthinkingly helped perpetuate, so I won't elaborate here, except to say that I know from having worked at military research conferences that drones raise concerns in this realm amongst the specialists in the field that F15s don't.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Would it be less unethical to fire missiles at or drop bombs on the same targets from, say, an F-15E? What would you say are the key differences between those two approaches?
quote:That is fascinating. I did a paper as part of my BA about the sociology of religion. I remember the lecturer saying that NZ wasn't as religious as the US (Eg church attendance, how people self identified). That article clarified the meaning behind what he was saying. I'm not saying Kiwis couldn't be bamboozled by a politician, we could, but the same kind of religious overtones would be unlikely to have mass appeal here, at least not at the moment.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(In an effort to get back to the US Presidential campaigns)
The scary parallels between religion and supporting Trump
quote:How is this ethical problem any different from throwing a rock at somebody or launching a ballistic missile? Is there some warrior code that says combat should only take place within line of sight or arm's reach?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The ethical problem with drones first and foremost is their combination of (theoretical) "as if you were there" performance and the physical remoteness of the operator to the theatre in which they are used. ...
quote:It is generally accepted that the more removed a person is from their actions, the more extreme those actions will be.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:How is this ethical problem any different from throwing a rock at somebody or launching a ballistic missile? Is there some warrior code that says combat should only take place within line of sight or arm's reach?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The ethical problem with drones first and foremost is their combination of (theoretical) "as if you were there" performance and the physical remoteness of the operator to the theatre in which they are used. ...
quote:It is - but if the last 15 years teach us anything, it's that the US has plenty of uniformed people ready, willing, and able to do the former; I doubt their greater closeness to the action improves the outcome for the targets.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You can get people to directly do nasty things to other people. But that generally requires training and/or exposure. Entering a building and killing all its occupants, targets and bystanders, is a very different thing than dropping a bomb on the same building even knowing there are probably non-combatants inside.
quote:I'm not convinced of your premise, but even if it were true, what point is this statement intended to support? That a pilot is less likely to carry out a mission than a drone operator? I think that unlikely.
F-15 v. drone? The objection is that the pilot of a manned aircraft has more ownership of what they are doing than the operator of a drone. This makes sense from a psychological standpoint.
quote:My point was that those giving the orders aren't any more remote in the case of drones than in the case of F-15s, and I expect the orders would be carried out in either case; I don't believe either the pilots or drone operators would consider them war crimes. Do you think the drone strikes are more likely to be war crimes than the 1999 air attacks on Iraq in 1999 that I mentioned above?
Following orders was not considered an excuse in the Nuremberg trials, though it has been accepted in some cases when those being tried/investigated have been on the same side as the investigators.
quote:Back when I was a political science major they told us the reason for the Electoral College is to place a buffer between popular vote and actual election, to help prevent emotional popularism bringing a charismatic but incapable or evil minded person to power.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another thoughtful article, this time suggesting that Trump's ascendance is inherent in the very nature of democracy.
quote:Sort of. In the earliest presidential elections the electors were usually selected by the legislatures of the individual states rather than by popular vote. Still, one of the reasons for the electoral college was to act as a brake on a popular demagogue gaining the presidency.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Back when I was a political science major they told us the reason for the Electoral College is to place a buffer between popular vote and actual election, to help prevent emotional popularism bringing a charismatic but incapable or evil minded person to power.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, a much larger reason the Founders didn't want to rely on the popular vote was the influence of America's Peculiar Institution. When the Constitution was being drafted there was the question of whether slaves should be counted as population for the purposes of taxation and congressional representation. The northern states, where slavery [was] less common, argued that slaves should count as population for the purposes of assessing a state's tax obligations but not for purposes of representation. The southern states, which had much larger enslaved populations, argued the reverse: that slaves should count for representation but not for tax purposes. This was eventually hammered out in the Three-Fifths Compromise where a slave counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of both Congressional representation and taxation.
Of course, regardless of how they were counted for the purposes of representation or taxation slaves still didn't get to vote. This would put the slaveholding states at a disadvantage (from their perspective) in electing the President if the process were done on the basis of collecting the popular vote on a national scale. On the other hand, giving each state a say in the presidential election proportional to its Congressional representation would have those 3/5th slaves "baked in". And the system worked very well (from the perspective of southern slaveholders) for quite some time, as the first fifteen American Presidents were either southern slaveholders themselves or politically beholden to the interests of southern slaveholders.
quote:Does no one remember Filegate, Travelgate, the "murder" of Vince Foster, or the Clinton body count? I'd say Hillary Clinton has about as much experience as you can expect of a modern politician in "insane" "out of the blue accusations". A more cynical person might suggest that the various fake Clinton scandals and the later obsession with Obama being a secret Gay Muslim Atheist Kenyan normalized the "insane out of the blue accusation" as a staple of Republican politics. Donald Trump is simply the obvious end-point of a long-running process.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Hillary had really better watch out here. Trump seems to have mastered the "make up a totally unforeseen and insane issue and force them to respond" strategy. It's not like Ted Cruz isn't a smart guy. (I don't like him, but I have no doubt that he has always been the smartest and probably most dangerous Republican in the race.) Smarts can't prepare you for out of the blue accusations. She's going to need to be ready for a completely stupid election.
quote:No. It is worse. He doesn't care if it is true or not. All he cares about is whether he can use it to damage an opponent. It is pure opportunism and smear tactics unrestrained by any shame or concern with truth. And yet, obviously, there are a large number of primary voters who want that for their President: a man who doesn't give a damn what the truth is.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
No, I think he honestly does believe this stuff. That's part of what makes him so dangerous, he can't differentiate between fact and fantasy.
quote:This. Not a delusion. Not Alzheimer.
Hedgehog: He doesn't care if it is true or not.
quote:I think you are underestimating the amount of traction Trump can get out of a completely asinine statement. Who else would have been able to drive the national conversation towards a totally outlandish tabloid story about Ted Cruz' father killing Kennedy? All of this stuff is coming back, no matter how many times it has been debunked, plus other stuff that we can only imagine, and the Media, based on prior performance, will eat it up.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Does no one remember Filegate, Travelgate, the "murder" of Vince Foster, or the Clinton body count? I'd say Hillary Clinton has about as much experience as you can expect of a modern politician in "insane" "out of the blue accusations". A more cynical person might suggest that the various fake Clinton scandals and the later obsession with Obama being a secret Gay Muslim Atheist Kenyan normalized the "insane out of the blue accusation" as a staple of Republican politics. Donald Trump is simply the obvious end-point of a long-running process.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Hillary had really better watch out here. Trump seems to have mastered the "make up a totally unforeseen and insane issue and force them to respond" strategy. It's not like Ted Cruz isn't a smart guy. (I don't like him, but I have no doubt that he has always been the smartest and probably most dangerous Republican in the race.) Smarts can't prepare you for out of the blue accusations. She's going to need to be ready for a completely stupid election.
quote:But don't you think nearly all the people who are going to believe that crap were never going to vote for her anyway? Trump's already got their votes.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm just saying that he just beat the entire Republican establishment. I wouldn't sleep on him if I were Clinton. If he were an easy candidate to discredit and defeat, someone would have done it by now.
quote:So right.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suspect a major issue might be the "plague on both your houses" non-voter percentage.
quote:Which is important - part of why Obama was able to win was his ability to increase the numbers of people willing to vote.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is there any evidence that any of those who voted for Obama last time would switch to Trump?
I suspect a major issue might be the "plague on both your houses" non-voter percentage.
quote:I know people tend to be cynical about others but everything I have ever read indicates that a certain percentage of Americans tend to give a crap about their country and thus will vote once they have looked thoroughly at the options. Engaged voters will either be swayed by the demagoguery or repelled by it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suspect a major issue might be the "plague on both your houses" non-voter percentage.
quote:I voted for Sanders in the Primary because I agree with more of his positions, but I will definitely vote to Clinton in November. But I live in Arizona which is a red state. I'm hoping we might actually go blue this year, but I'm afraid I'll be disappointed again.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
BTW I don't think that disillusioned Sanders voters will be an important factor in November. Most of them will go over to voting for Clinton. A few of them might stay home, but not enough to make a difference, especially since most of them are in states that will go Dem anyway.
quote:There were a few debates towards the end of the Rubio campaign where Rubio and Cruz tag-teamed the "look at this clown" attacks, and it didn't do a whole lot of good. Clinton will certainly have a much bigger base of voters who are excited about it. But bottom line, Trump is shameless, and it is hard to shame a shameless person.
The other Republican hopefuls couldn't really attack Trump as the misogynistic bigoted buffoon he is, because they all needed the votes of the people who really go in for that sort of thing, and telling them their favorite candidate was a jackass wouldn't be very endearing.
quote:I said it above, the reason I caucused for Bernie was because I hope that some day the Democrats will run on "we have progressive ideas that work in other countries and will work here" rather than "maybe some other time, but now we have to beat this scary Republican." Sounds like this still isn't the year.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
This all has the potential to develop a crusade mindset coming from the Democrats. That can get out people.
quote:And that's something that's hard to undo. Traditionally the biggest indicator of whether someone will vote or not is whether they've voted before. The assumption that first-time voters who voted for Obama in 2008 would somehow evaporate back into the ether from whence they came was one of the key mistakes of the whole "Unskewed Polls" fiasco in 2012. And let's not forget that although he won't be on the ballot Barrack Obama will doubtlessly campaign heavily for the Democratic nominee, most likely casting it as the only way to preserve his legacy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Which is important - part of why Obama was able to win was his ability to increase the numbers of people willing to vote.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is there any evidence that any of those who voted for Obama last time would switch to Trump?
I suspect a major issue might be the "plague on both your houses" non-voter percentage.
quote:This is what I expect too. And to 'jackass' you can add 'hijo de puta': I've already read about a spike in Latino voter registrations.
Og: Thread Killer: That and given Trumps overt sexist and racist stances, a good number of people are going to be highly motivated to ensure that "jackass" doesn't get into power.
quote:Given that all states are some shade of purple, how much of a swing will be needed?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But I live in Arizona which is a red state.
quote:Arizona has been R+9 in the last two presidential elections. Of course, this is one of the states that is projected to turn blue somewhere in the next decades, due to growth of the Latino population.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Given that all states are some shade of purple, how much of a swing will be needed?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But I live in Arizona which is a red state.
quote:If we take 2012 as our baseline, Arizonans preferred Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by about 9 percentage points. In order to change that you'd need to either convince 104,210 Arizonans who voted for Romney last time that they should vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, or get 208,421 newly-registered voters to vote Democratic. For reference, according to U.S. Census estimates the population of Arizona residents over 18 years of age was 4,939,936, so about 46.5% of the voting-age population of Arizona voted in 2012. This does not factor in things like citizenship status of residents or felon disenfranchisement. It's estimated that ~11% of Arizona's residents are non-citizens, but I don't know how that breaks down by age.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Given that all states are some shade of purple, how much of a swing will be needed?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But I live in Arizona which is a red state.
quote:One could always try, I suppose, we want to provide a path to citizenship, and also make health care and a college education more affordable and widely available.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Personally I can't think of a more effective campaign slogan to convince young Arizonans to vote Democratic than "Trump wants to deport your grandmother".
quote:It would convince young Hispanic voters to vote against Trump, but at the same time a lot of Arizonans would be thrilled by the idea of him deporting all those Mexicans who are "stealing our jobs and raping our womenfolk."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Personally I can't think of a more effective campaign slogan to convince young Arizonans to vote Democratic than "Trump wants to deport your grandmother".
quote:Well, may be.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
People get that our interests are varied, and that we don't vote as one huge block.
Minority voters? One catchy phrase on the one issue we think they care about and we think you can win the whole block of them.
Just another way I am privileged.
quote:Sort of. I had reached out to the Kaisch campaign weeks ago to help volunteer here in California. In the past these things were almost inevitably decided before
Originally posted by Huia:
Did anyone foresee Cruz and and Kasich throwing in the towel?(is that what suspending his campaign actually means?).
Huia
quote:Good. And the upper-levels are worth noting. The Bushes 41 and 43 have both stated they will sit this one out, and campaign/endorse for no one.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And many, many lower-level worker bees and volunteers in the party are simply going to sit this one out. I know my son is. He won't get into bed with Trump.
quote:I think McCain lost his way years ago, when he was the first victim of
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I was appalled to see that John McCain gave his support today, despite the thoroughly despicable and dishonorable things the Donald said about him.
quote:I would like to think that all that stands between Trump or Clinton and the presidency would be the American people who make that decision not in a vacuum of their own history and desires but also subject to both any media they encounter and any local pressure provided by people they know or come into contact with.
Originally posted by rolyn:
....
Now only Hilary C stands between an outlandish maverick and the Presidency....
quote:Just spent ten minutes looking for what guru had said this before I remembered it was LeRoc. Are you sure you're not working for the Clinton campaign in their strategy department?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I think Clinton should do is: don't try too much to show his fallacies by way of reason. For Trump, this is never an argument based on logic or reason. Instead, let him have his little victories: "I said something nasty about women on TV and the host let me get away with it, huh huh." Indeed, goad him into doing this more often. Women will remember what he said when November comes.
At the same time, Clinton could take advantage on the fact that Trump has no ground game, but is relying solely on his TV presence. Make use of the ground work that Obama has laid, and use Trump's statements to fire up the base against him.
quote:Of course, because Democrat run cities such as Chicago and San Francisco are paragons of clean government.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've figured that the GOP is giving up on the presidency altogether and devoting their resources to taking over state governments and congress.
All of the power with less of the responsibility, and small time officials are so much cheaper to corrupt.
quote:Ah yes, the same tactic Cheney/Bush later used successfully to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think McCain lost his way years ago, when he was the first victim of
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I was appalled to see that John McCain gave his support today, despite the thoroughly despicable and dishonorable things the Donald said about him.
Rove's swift-boating tactics.
quote:Yes, but no one needed a Presidential election to prove that to them
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which shows you that ordination does nothing for inborn idiocy.
quote:Looks like that campaign has realised the need to mobilise would-be Democratic support for November and the publicity arm is off to an early start. Looks like a clear aim to mobilise support from women, ethnic minorities and moderates. I should think they could create a lot more in similar vein. There's a lot of material to work with.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Link leads to Mother Jones, but really because that's the first place where someone put links to H. Clinton's first two anti-Trump ads.
quote:Taking over? Try maintaining control. The Republicans currently hold 23 state "trifectas"- house, senate, and governors office. This is compared to the Democrat's seven. Despite the national chaos, the GOP is stronger on the local level than at any time since the Great Depression.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've figured that the GOP is giving up on the presidency altogether and devoting their resources to taking over state governments and congress.
All of the power with less of the responsibility, and small time officials are so much cheaper to corrupt.
quote:By all means, but I don't think it is going to work as a strategy against him.
Doublethink.: I would think that querying Trump's own estimate of himself might be worth doing.
quote:Why people continue to think this will work or that the other Republicans didn't try it is beyond me. Shame the shameless, that's the ticket!
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would think that querying Trump's own estimate of himself might be worth doing.
As in:
If Trump's such a winner, why'd he fail so badly he needed a wall street style bailout ?
If Trump's such a winner, why'd he fail so badly at marriage ?
If Trump's such a winner, why'd his businesses fail to earn him more than if he'd put his legacy In a bank ?
Etc
quote:Not sure about the union members, but I do think that Trump will suddenly move to the left of Clinton on economic issues, just to get her off-balance.
Og, King of Bashan: But could Trump make headway with the actual union members and former union members who have lost manufacturing jobs? Something to watch...
quote:Yes, that will be interesting. One of the first things they're likely to show is that he has much less money than he says he has.
Brenda Clough: I think Trump's weak point is his tax returns. He has refused to release them, to date. He must, now. I am certain that there's tons of fun in there.
quote:Mitt Romney didn't release his until September -- and only one year's plus a "summary."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think Trump's weak point is his tax returns. He has refused to release them, to date. He must, now. I am certain that there's tons of fun in there.
quote:Nope - born in 1946, Trump was of prime age for the draft. Wikipedia says he got student deferments while in college, then a medical deferment in 1968 (for "heel spurs" despite being briefly classified 1-A by a local draft board), then a high lottery number in 1969.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Probably too young to serve at that point.
quote:
In a 1997 interview with shock jock Howard Stern, Trump talked about how he had been “lucky” not to have contracted diseases when he was sleeping around.
“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era,” Trump said in a video that resurfaced Tuesday on Buzzfeed, “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”
quote:Well that should certainly win him the hearts -- and votes -- of lots of Viet Nam vets.
"I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era,” Trump said in a video that resurfaced Tuesday on Buzzfeed, “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier."
quote:That gets a :noteworthy:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's certainly a gallant sentiment, and I would think that nearly all women will respond to it with the appropriate apothegms.
quote:(Pictures some wild eyed, haggard woman quivering and desperately chain smoking in front of a camera) "Man, you don't know what it's like unless you've been there."
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That gets a :noteworthy:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's certainly a gallant sentiment, and I would think that nearly all women will respond to it with the appropriate apothegms.
Does he refer to any part of himself as his brave little soldier?
quote:Many of us would not wish that fellow in our shitehouse let alone the Whitehouse. But unless America is going to stop him by electing it's first ever female President then Whitehouse is where Nellie is headed.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would not trust the Donald with my gardening trowel.
quote:...of course.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No natural skin is that color. Or hair.
quote:On Inauguration Day 2017 Donald Trump will be a little less than one year older than Ronald Reagan was on Inauguration Day 1981. In other words, if elected Donald Trump would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term presidency.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Damn, [Trump] must have had a lot of cosmetic work done. I was under the impression he was less than ten years older than me.
quote:Yeah, we discussed that a couple weeks back in particular regard to Bernie Sanders as Clinton's running mate. Short version: if you're an old (60+) presidential candidate don't pick someone even older as your running mate.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So Trump would be 70 at inauguration, Clinton would be 69. Women do live longer, in general, but if age is a major concern for you, you might be concerned either way.
quote:She always seemed to be in it only because of her odd schoolgirl infatuation with George HW Bush....
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mary Matalin has quit the GOP today.
quote:Up until a year ago I worked with a crew of guys that listened to Glenn Beck religiously
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Glen Beck has called upon all Republicans to leave the GOP, but I will point out that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
and he's been pulling away from the GOP (as well as the NRA) for a while now. I think he officially left the GOP and NRA himself last year.quote:But ya gotta hand it to the Liberals. They have an unfailing talent for convincing voters, the media etc, that all their symbolism and vague rhetoric amounts to major social progress.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Liberals were not "the opposition", John, the Liberals were the third party in the House.
As for "positive impact", it took that long for the Liberals to sufficiently cannibalize the NDP vote in order to win, up to and including blatantly false promises (electoral reform springs to mind).
quote:He's always been fairly populist on economic issues, especially trade(protectionist), and kind of default liberal on things like GLBQT rights(eg. his comment on washrooms). So this is not entirely inconsistent with that.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is tacking left: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36239546
quote:Quite. It wasn't until I started working in call centres and had to learn the arts of positioning, spin and sales myself that I recognized just what masters the Liberals are at these things.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:But ya gotta hand it to the Liberals. They have an unfailing talent for convincing voters, the media etc, that all their symbolism and vague rhetoric amounts to major social progress.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Liberals were not "the opposition", John, the Liberals were the third party in the House.
As for "positive impact", it took that long for the Liberals to sufficiently cannibalize the NDP vote in order to win, up to and including blatantly false promises (electoral reform springs to mind).
For example, it was widely reported that the government had announced(in New York City, not Canada) that marijuana will be legalized in 2017.
But when you read the actual quotes from Jane Phillpot, nowhere does she say that marijuana will be legalized in 2017, or even ever. And neither does Bill Blair, the guy the article describes as "the govenrment's point man on the legalization legislation."
And yet I just saw an article in The Economist a few hours ago that refered to Justin Trudeau as "Canada's cannibas legalizing Prime Minister".
quote:Way to miss the point, SPK.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Liberals were not "the opposition", John, the Liberals were the third party in the House.
As for "positive impact", it took that long for the Liberals to sufficiently cannibalize the NDP vote in order to win, up to and including blatantly false promises (electoral reform springs to mind).
My current MP is the Minister for Democratic Reform. If you think the Liberals are ever going to pass an electoral reform bill, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I will gladly continue this in another thread if desired.
quote:And small towns are often every bit as corrupt. It's just that the returns are so small that nobody bothers to notice.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Of course, because Democrat run cities such as Chicago and San Francisco are paragons of clean government.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've figured that the GOP is giving up on the presidency altogether and devoting their resources to taking over state governments and congress.
All of the power with less of the responsibility, and small time officials are so much cheaper to corrupt.
quote:I think I'll rely on 538's more nuanced analysis of the topic. Looks like blue states are right up there.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Also, look up the most corrupt states in the union. Illinois is up there, and the rest are the reddest of red states. I think Mississippi is the worst offender, though it has been a while since I looked.
quote:The dead... helping to sure Democrat majorities since the 1960 presidential election.
As to why republicans fail to get any traction in major metropolitan areas, that's a completely different thread...
quote:If I was going to predict where was more corrupt than somewhere else, a high rate of convictions would tell me that the law enforcement system was working correctly to weed out graft. If there were low rates of convictions, I'd have to assume either that there was no graft (unlikely), or that law enforcement was as corrupt as the officials they were supposed to investigate.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think I'll rely on 538's more nuanced analysis of the topic. Looks like blue states are right up there.
quote:The NDP got its keester kicked and is still blaming everybody but itself.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Golly I thought this thread was about US politics. Silly me.
quote:IMO and IME, it's swings and roundabouts. Smaller governments are easier to corrupt if everyone is onboard.* And they tend to have fewer eyes on. However, larger governments have less inter-agency accountability and more places to hide illegal and unethical behaviour. And, once in place, it is more difficult to root out in a larger governmental system.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Also, if my point was that smaller governments are easier to corrupt, well, as huge as Chicago is, it's not as big, nor as robust as the fed.
quote:If we use the metric you suggest, for reasons which sound fairly reasonable to me, I don't think it helps the argument that "red" states have more corruption than "blue" states. If we use the reporter ratings we see that five of the top ten states went blue the last two presidential elections. That number drops to four if we go back another four years. That's not a significant difference.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:If I was going to predict where was more corrupt than somewhere else, a high rate of convictions would tell me that the law enforcement system was working correctly to weed out graft. If there were low rates of convictions, I'd have to assume either that there was no graft (unlikely), or that law enforcement was as corrupt as the officials they were supposed to investigate.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think I'll rely on 538's more nuanced analysis of the topic. Looks like blue states are right up there.
A much better index would be the reporter ratings. They know stuff that would never make it to court. So, Kentucky leaps from #15 to #1, Alabama #13 to #4, Mississippi from #17 to #7. New York falls from #1 to #11.
quote:As noted previously Trump's willingness to embrace positions that are popular but fall outside the Platonic ideal of "American Conservatism" was his main strength in the primaries. He realized that the positions embraced by the Republican elites, like cutting taxes for the wealthy or slashing Social Security benefits, are regarded by the average Republican voter with either indifference or hostility.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Mmm. He has indeed been to the left of the Republicans on economic issues throughout the campaign. But he's now emphasising that more. I think he realises that he's got as much as he's going to get of the Republican right. He'll try to take a big chunk out of the blue-collar Democrat vote. It might work too...
quote:Amen. Preach it, sistah!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The question to my mind is whether this messy divorce will also lead to a split between Christianity (or at least the white Southern end of it) and conservatism. This union also was made in hell, and the church has derived no benefit from it, so a split may be in the end good for it.
quote:While I agree, please remember that there are plenty of us on the white Southern end of Christianity who were never married to conservatism in the first place. I think the missing word is "evangelical."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Amen. Preach it, sistah!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The question to my mind is whether this messy divorce will also lead to a split between Christianity (or at least the white Southern end of it) and conservatism. This union also was made in hell, and the church has derived no benefit from it, so a split may be in the end good for it.
quote:Yes-- good point. And of course, there are a number of us left-wing evangelicals as well. However, even here in the West, we can start to feel like unicorns, both because we're numerically in the minority even here, but also because we seem to be non-existent in the media. So anything that separates conservative politics from evangelical faith, even or especially in the public eye, is IMHO a very good thing.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:While I agree, please remember that there are plenty of us on the white Southern end of Christianity who were never married to conservatism in the first place. I think the missing word is "evangelical."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Amen. Preach it, sistah!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The question to my mind is whether this messy divorce will also lead to a split between Christianity (or at least the white Southern end of it) and conservatism. This union also was made in hell, and the church has derived no benefit from it, so a split may be in the end good for it.
quote:Well, traffic on the Beltway comes to mind...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From today's Atlantic: "Donald Trump on Monday made perhaps the most important hire of his presidential campaign to date, choosing Chris Christie to lead his transition team if he wins the White House in November."
What could possibly go wrong?
quote:Don't give up! It's not so very long ago there was a left-wing Southern evangelical president! (And I don't mean Bill Clinton)...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And of course, there are a number of us left-wing evangelicals as well. However, even here in the West, we can start to feel like unicorns, both because we're numerically in the minority even here, but also because we seem to be non-existent in the media.
quote:Ah, yes. I voted for him.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Don't give up! It's not so very long ago there was a left-wing Southern evangelical president! (And I don't mean Bill Clinton)...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And of course, there are a number of us left-wing evangelicals as well. However, even here in the West, we can start to feel like unicorns, both because we're numerically in the minority even here, but also because we seem to be non-existent in the media.
quote:Another tack? Well, not really. It's just part of his general horse's ass approach to policy declarations. This morning, if you are a Muslim elected to high office in another country you can rest easy. You may be able to visit the USA after all. Provided the Donald thinks you're safe enough. Or, at least, until the Donald can figure out what the Hell is going on in his own mind.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trump is tacking left: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36239546
quote:I see you are an out-and-out optimist, B62.
...until the Donald can figure out what the Hell is going on in his own mind.
quote:
"I am sure no man in England will take away my life to make you King."
quote:It's only amusing if Hillary Clinton wins.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... That it would be something in the nature of a shotgun marriage would be amusing.
quote:I'm pretty sure that the only real news here is that the Trump campaign has selected someone who is openly a white nationalist. White nationalists in the Trump campaign are more of a feature than a bug.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So Mother Jones is reporting that Trump selected a white nationalist as delegate for California, his campaign are now claiming this was due to a technical glitch ...
quote:Nate Silver pointed out that it is waaay too early to be looking at polls.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A long way to go, of course, but it's already looking tight in some key states, whether it's Trump v Clinton or Trump v Sanders (v unlikely).
quote:My bet is that Cruz is actually working on a different kind of shotgun marriage- Trump to a hard right platform. Trump departs from the GOP of the last 35 years by being an economic populist with little interest in the traditional Republican wedge social issues. Don't expect the platform to reflect that...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That it would be something in the nature of a shotgun marriage would be amusing.
quote:For those who are curious, here's the 2012 Platform of the Republican Party [PDF]. The bit about repealing Obamacare is on pp. 32-33.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But nobody pays attention to the platform anyway. (Name a feature of Mitt Romney's -- I can't, although I reason that it had a plank abolishing Obamacare.)
quote:If he loses in November I expect that to become a standard Republican talking point.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are right. Trump said earlier this week (it was quoted on NPR), "This election isn't about the party. It's about me."
quote:If.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If he loses in November
quote:Fair idea but she is 90. Would they be so enthusiastic about her son?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Again, I raise the prospect of the USA joining the Commonwealth. Liz 2 is a great monarch, and it doesn't matter what she thinks about anything as long as she keeps things pastel.
I'm serious. Throw over your constitution and get back to the Empire.
quote:The party that suggests that will lose the Irish vote for generations.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Again, I raise the prospect of the USA joining the Commonwealth. Liz 2 is a great monarch, and it doesn't matter what she thinks about anything as long as she keeps things pastel.
I'm serious. Throw over your constitution and get back to the Empire.
quote:It's never too early to look at polls! It may be too early to start trusting polls, but it's never too early to look. There's also the fact that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already well known figures nationally before this election cycle, so the public's opinion of them is likely much better formed than their opinion of someone like John Kasich, who most people outside Ohio knew nothing about before 2016.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Nate Silver pointed out that it is waaay too early to be looking at polls.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A long way to go, of course, but it's already looking tight in some key states, whether it's Trump v Clinton or Trump v Sanders (v unlikely).
quote:This is based on one poll; I'm not putting much trust in that.
Crœsos: The one exception seems to be Utah, which has shown a lot of movement towards the Democrats.
quote:But it's consistent with Utah's Republican primary, where Trump carried ~14% of the popular vote. Offhand I can't think of any other state where Trump finished with a sub-20% result. The Republican residents of Utah just don't like him, and this dovetails with other polling that Mormons in general (a fairly consistently Republican group) don't like him much.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:This is based on one poll; I'm not putting much trust in that.
Crœsos: The one exception seems to be Utah, which has shown a lot of movement towards the Democrats.
quote:Spot on. Interesting link too. Many thanks.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's never too early to look at polls! It may be too early to start trusting polls, but it's never too early to look.
quote:Hmmm, sounds pretty tempting.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are you an American planning to escape to northern climes, should Trump take the Oval Office? Worried you won't know anyone? The Maple Match dating service will match you with a real, live Canadian!
quote:Ever prepared, I took care of that 20 years ago
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are you an American planning to escape to northern climes, should Trump take the Oval Office? Worried you won't know anyone? The Maple Match dating service will match you with a real, live Canadian!
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are you an American planning to escape to northern climes, should Trump take the Oval Office? Worried you won't know anyone? The Maple Match dating service will match you with a real, live Canadian!
One day I typed "how do I--" into Google, and before I finished my question the suggestion How do I immigrate to Canada? showed up.
quote:You're not fooling anyone with your stories about Canadian girlfriends, you know. Most Americans have twigged to that ruse by now.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are you an American planning to escape to northern climes, should Trump take the Oval Office? Worried you won't know anyone? The Maple Match dating service will match you with a real, live Canadian!
quote:What do you mean by "so many"? By my count the American constitution has been amended eighteen times. (The first ten count as one "time" since they were ratified en masse.)
Originally posted by simontoad:
No, no, I'm serious. The American Constitution has had so many amendments that its like a bad golfer trying to correct his chronic slice.
quote:Are you sure about that "none"? This text on the General Court's website indicates amendments (of which there are plenty) in the body; but it's not hard to find articles that appear to show no signs of being changed or superseded. E.g., Articles 4-8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 22-25, 27, and 30 in the first part* alone.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Massachusetts currently has the oldest state constitution, enacted 1780, but it has been amended beyond recognition such that none of the original text is still in effect.
quote:No, I don't. Bad analogy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with revising the written document that lays out how we govern ourselves.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm no expert, but can you imagine what a bad golfer's swing would look like after being amended 18 times?
bring the wrists up, take your hip slightly down on the left, put your left foot further towards the ball, go a bit higher with the swing, bend your knees more etc etc etc. You see my point.
quote:Trump's support from religious conservatives has been sketchy, to say the least. I think Falwell Jr. was the only prominent evangelical leader to publically endorse him during the primaries(though some at least will probably do so in the general election).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But it's consistent with Utah's Republican primary, where Trump carried ~14% of the popular vote. Offhand I can't think of any other state where Trump finished with a sub-20% result. The Republican residents of Utah just don't like him, and this dovetails with other polling that Mormons in general (a fairly consistently Republican group) don't like him much.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:This is based on one poll; I'm not putting much trust in that.
Crœsos: The one exception seems to be Utah, which has shown a lot of movement towards the Democrats.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
No, no, I'm serious. The American Constitution has had so many amendments that its like a bad golfer trying to correct his chronic slice.
quote:Not really. Are you saying that learning anything new or any kind of change is inherently bad? That a golfer should use the same swing as the very first day he picked up the clubs? Personally I'm skeptical of the argument from antiquity (i.e. this is the way it's always been done, therefore it's the right way).
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm no expert, but can you imagine what a bad golfer's swing would look like after being amended 18 times?
bring the wrists up, take your hip slightly down on the left, put your left foot further towards the ball, go a bit higher with the swing, bend your knees more etc etc etc. You see my point.
quote:Actually Trump's had pretty strong support from religious conservatives. That was one of the factors that was supposed to sink him, the expectation that religious conservatives (a key Republican voting bloc) would vote for one of their own, like Ted Cruz or Scott Walker (remember him?). It turns out that religious conservatives preferred Trump, and by a pretty wide margin. This led to some "True Scotsman" debates within the religious conservative community about whether Trump voters were "really" religious conservatives.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Trump's support from religious conservatives has been sketchy, to say the least. I think Falwell Jr. was the only prominent evangelical leader to publicly endorse him during the primaries(though some at least will probably do so in the general election).
quote:The irony, of course, being that Trump IS the "system"-- he's the ultimate insider. Instead of voting for a pandering professional pol who is indebted to special interests, they're opting to eliminate the middleman and just vote for the special interest himself. A perverse efficiency, I guess...
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm sure there's a portion of Trump supporters who don't care. There's a portion who doesn't care about anything he says or does, or has said, or has done. Just that he's not part of "the system" that's been screwing them over, and he's strong and powerful and will poke the system in the eye and kick it in the nuts, and maybe, somehow, this will either make them feel better, or help them get a better deal.
quote:It's pretty amazing, isn't it? It's hard to imagine the latest story won't sink him, but we've all thought that several times already:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...
Is there anything at all that Trump can say or do that will turn anyone who has once supported him against him?
quote:Do you have a reference for this understanding?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The entire text was recodified 1917 at which time 66 amendments were swept-in to the original text. AIUI there is no unamended section from 1780 still in force.
quote:Your milage may vary.
Number one, I'm not stupid... Two, I'm not devisive, I'm a unifier...
quote:He could maybe try comparing the US Constitution to a bad golfer's swing?
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is there anything at all that Trump can say or do that will turn anyone who has once supported him against him?
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Donald Trump speaking on UK television yesterday:
quote:Your milage may vary.
Number one, I'm not stupid... Two, I'm not devisive, I'm a unifier...
AFZ
quote:I'm beginning to wonder if stupid, obstinate, resentful anarchism is the zeitgeist. A kind of revolt against the complexities of the modern world; a journey back towards the illusory safeties of tribalism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
He's either crazy, stupid or evil, and I think people know that. I just don't understand why some have decided that crazy/stupid/evil is better than "establishment".
quote:.. and you can argue that they are pioneers in many ways, in adopting the strategy of rolling out a constant Gish's Gallop of semi-truths and falsehoods in a way that can easily be retracted later.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I doubt whether Boris or the Donald really are stupid; I don't doubt that both are dishonest and have a lust for power.
quote:A sort of atavistic anarchism (or maybe even nihilism) - yes, I've rather thought that at times.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I'm beginning to wonder if stupid, obstinate, resentful anarchism is the zeitgeist. A kind of revolt against the complexities of the modern world; a journey back towards the illusory safeties of tribalism.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
He's either crazy, stupid or evil, and I think people know that. I just don't understand why some have decided that crazy/stupid/evil is better than "establishment".
It is very easily played on by powerful manipulators. Who may be simulating this kind of "stupid" (e.g. Boris Johnson on Hitler) because they recognise what it is taking to mobilise unthinking support.
I doubt whether Boris or the Donald really are stupid; I don't doubt that both are dishonest and have a lust for power.
quote:Excellent link and an accurate observation on impatience with forensic analysis.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:.. and you can argue that they are pioneers in many ways, in adopting the strategy of rolling out a constant Gish's Gallop of semi-truths and falsehoods in a way that can easily be retracted later.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I doubt whether Boris or the Donald really are stupid; I don't doubt that both are dishonest and have a lust for power.
The only defense to which is forensic dis-assembly of the sort that very few people have the patience to sit through [I imagine very few people sit through something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w21s5r2nTlA ]
quote:
1. A person who sells quack medicines from a platform
2. A boastful unscrupulous pretender : charlatan
quote:Rhetoric is one third rational, logos. That's an image of human nature. And it's a weak third, subservient to ethos: "It ain't FAIR! Who's to blame?" and pathos: "YEAH!!!". Pathos/ethos/logos - the deadly combination that makes us ALL crazy/stupid/evil. Some of us know it and don't want it of ourselves. And MUST love those who are trapped in it.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:It's pretty amazing, isn't it? It's hard to imagine the latest story won't sink him, but we've all thought that several times already:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...
Is there anything at all that Trump can say or do that will turn anyone who has once supported him against him?
Dinky Donald
tl;dr - Dinky Donald used aliases. He admitted to using an alias for business purposes several times, even under oath. He called reporters to plant stories about the status of his various relationships and female celebrities asking him for sex. There's a recording, identified as him by close intimates, which he is now claiming was not him.
He's either crazy, stupid or evil, and I think people know that. I just don't understand why some have decided that crazy/stupid/evil is better than "establishment". Even if someone believes we're all oppressed cogs in the establishment's military-industrial complex, why would any rational person believe Dinky Donald would treat the cogs any better?
quote:That was brilliant. I sat through it, and the other one about the tea bags. A man who deserves to be demolished, was demolished.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... and you can argue that they are pioneers in many ways, in adopting the strategy of rolling out a constant Gish's Gallop of semi-truths and falsehoods in a way that can easily be retracted later.
The only defense to which is forensic dis-assembly of the sort that very few people have the patience to sit through [I imagine very few people sit through something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w21s5r2nTlA ]
quote:I especially enjoyed;
Originally posted by Enoch:
That was brilliant. I sat through it, and the other one about the tea bags. A man who deserves to be demolished, was demolished.
quote:
Originally said by Boris:
I’ve got this new piece of research hot off the press, published today by the House of Commons library saying that 59% of British legislation is imposed by the EU.
quote:The thing that worries me about modern democracy is that none of this seems to matter. Copy, bandwidth and retweets that strike a chord with the disenfranchised and the lost seem to be all that counts in the race for votes. And there is barely a cigarette paper between Trump and Boris in that regard.
Originally said by rather dry bald bloke:
Actually that was published in 2014, and the figures were between 15% and 59%, depending on whether individual decisions were put into the calculations.
quote:The really disenfrachised and lost don't get a look in. They've given up. The race for votes ignores the disenfranchised, because that's what disenfranchised means.
Originally posted by mdijon:
The thing that worries me about modern democracy is that none of this seems to matter. Copy, bandwidth and retweets that strike a chord with the disenfranchised and the lost seem to be all that counts in the race for votes.
quote:Here is a link giving the views of a veteran evangelical and social justice campaigner.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm suspicious of analysis that uses marketing techniques to support its argument. I strongly suspect that American evangelicals are a diverse mob, and at most what is needed is a bit of good old fashioned revival.
quote:Yes: see Rachel Held Evans. I'm old enough and entrenched enough (including professionally) in the evangelical brand to want to hang on to/ hope to redeem the label, but for younger evangelicals, that's not the case. The tragedy is that American evangelicalism has been historically progressive with a commitment to incarnational social justice, so it's sad to see it shift so far from our roots.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Here is a link giving the views of a veteran evangelical and social justice campaigner.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm suspicious of analysis that uses marketing techniques to support its argument. I strongly suspect that American evangelicals are a diverse mob, and at most what is needed is a bit of good old fashioned revival.
Essentially, Campolo confirms that for him and for those who think like him, the word "evangelical" has become tainted. damaged by baggage.
quote:Actually, it's the (politically) conservative side of American evangelicalism that's on the decline. Younger evangelicals (the group I work closely with) in particular are harkening back to our progressive roots and eschewing the Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell/Franklin Graham style that's on the decline. The bright stars in the American evangelical movement currently are all progressives: Campolo, Brian McLaren, Rachel Held Evans, Jim Wallis, Greg Boyd, etc. Of course, as noted above, many of those young evangelicals are also eschewing the label. The con-evo style of American evangelicalism is really just a microcosm of what's happening to the GOP in general: they're losing the demographic battle-- their demise is in the cards-- so the ramping up of angry rhetoric/ extremist views/ conspiracy theories can (please God) be seen as simply the desperate thrashing about of a fatally wounded animal.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm sure there are diversities of views amongst US evangelicals. From this side of the pond, it does look as though the "privatised" gospel (with emphasis on both personal conversions and conservative views on hot button issues) has been in the ascendancy for many years. Folks like Tony Campolo represent a minority voice in US evo circles and get a lot of public criticism any time they say anything which departs from the conservative evangelical party line.
quote:No paywall problems from here. But I'm not sure I agree with all of that. Fascism certainly has had some core features historically, and I'm far from certain that Trump meets some of them. The man is certainly a right-wing buffoon, and a substantial danger to the future of America, let alone the rest of us. But is it helpful to sling such epithets about without some precision? I don't think right-wing populism is synonymous with fascism.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the POST, so it may be behind the paywall for you, but worth reading: historian Robert Kagan on why Trump is so dangerous.
quote:If you'll pardon me for being a bit provocative...
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:No paywall problems from here. But I'm not sure I agree with all of that. Fascism certainly has had some core features historically, and I'm far from certain that Trump meets some of them. The man is certainly a right-wing buffoon, and a substantial danger to the future of America, let alone the rest of us. But is it helpful to sling such epithets about without some precision? I don't think right-wing populism is synonymous with fascism.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the POST, so it may be behind the paywall for you, but worth reading: historian Robert Kagan on why Trump is so dangerous.
quote:"Fascist" is like "Communist": it is often applied to folks we don't like without paying particular attention to the details.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
What's the difference? Right wing populism isn't fascism until it gets into power?
quote:Sounds quite Trumplike to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd be inclined to reserve the word 'fascism' for people who actually want to abolish voting, or at least to restrict the franchise. Likewise, the removal of other civil liberties. Also, I think fascism implies a strong vein of militarism or other idealisation of violent masculinity.
It also implies social conservatism and a high rejection of difference (usually in the form of racism and other bigotries).
Since fascism is by definition more closely allied to right-wing concerns, I'd have to add something about keeping big business in private ownership and under private management.
quote:I think one probably could - and without rendering the concept meaningless. It would certainly be a valid critique of Stalinist Russia.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... (For example, if you take this approach, you could justifiably class Stalinist Russia as fascist). ...
quote:If you take Moussolini's definition as supplied above by Carex, it was.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... (For example, if you take this approach, you could justifiably class Stalinist Russia as fascist). ...
quote:Is he really worse than Marcos?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Have people been following the Philippines election story? Duterte seems substantially worse than Trump, if that's possible, and got elected.
quote:And just when I thought I had heard everything.
Evangelical leaders noted how he often flashes a signature hand gesture, with a thumb out and a finger point to the sky . . . . "You see athletes do it all the time . . . to thank God for their success," said Pastor Mark Burns, CEO of a Christian television network based in South Carolina. "Trump does this all of the time, too. He's giving reverence to the man upstairs . . . . He too still submits himself to God," said Burns.
quote:The man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, at least one evangelical pastor thinks that a certain hand gesture that Donald Trump habitually makes is evidence of his holiness:
quote:And just when I thought I had heard everything.
Evangelical leaders noted how he often flashes a signature hand gesture, with a thumb out and a finger point to the sky . . . . "You see athletes do it all the time . . . to thank God for their success," said Pastor Mark Burns, CEO of a Christian television network based in South Carolina. "Trump does this all of the time, too. He's giving reverence to the man upstairs . . . . He too still submits himself to God," said Burns.
quote:Trump is missing the militarism I think, and that's a substantial part of fascism... that and snappy uniforms.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:Sounds quite Trumplike to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd be inclined to reserve the word 'fascism' for people who actually want to abolish voting, or at least to restrict the franchise. Likewise, the removal of other civil liberties. Also, I think fascism implies a strong vein of militarism or other idealisation of violent masculinity.
It also implies social conservatism and a high rejection of difference (usually in the form of racism and other bigotries).
Since fascism is by definition more closely allied to right-wing concerns, I'd have to add something about keeping big business in private ownership and under private management.
quote:All kinds of people believe and behave that they are on a "Mission from God".
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, at least one evangelical pastor thinks that a certain hand gesture that Donald Trump habitually makes is evidence of his holiness:
quote:And just when I thought I had heard everything.
Evangelical leaders noted how he often flashes a signature hand gesture, with a thumb out and a finger point to the sky . . . . "You see athletes do it all the time . . . to thank God for their success," said Pastor Mark Burns, CEO of a Christian television network based in South Carolina. "Trump does this all of the time, too. He's giving reverence to the man upstairs . . . . He too still submits himself to God," said Burns.
and second it twice
quote:Not really. Trump advocates significantly expanding the U.S. military, and has been fairly consistent about maintaining this position. He also advocates using the U.S. military to extort tribute from American allies.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Trump is missing the militarism I think, and that's a substantial part of fascism... that and snappy uniforms.
quote:Well, as far as I've heard in relation to the ROK, Trump is saying that the Koreans need to pay more for the upkeep of the American forces here, or he'll pull them out.
He also advocates using the U.S. military to extort tribute from American allies.
quote:Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Stetson, you are assuming he'll listen to the military brass. I have my doubts.
quote:But you've also got statements like:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
quote:That one was from Meet the Press, but it's a fairly consistent statement from Trump's speeches and only slightly less frequent a reference than his beloved wall.
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.
quote:Yeah, I'm sure he said that. But I was specifically responding of your point about him using the military "to exact tribute from our allies", which I took to mean his threats to dismante NATO and the USFK if the other members of those alliances don't pay their supposed fair share of the costs.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But you've also got statements like:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
quote:That one was from Meet the Press, but it's a fairly consistent statement from Trump's speeches and only slightly less frequent a reference than his beloved wall.
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.
quote:There's no contradiction, but it's no more than an attempt to trick people into believing that higher government spending can be done without higher taxes. Well, without higher taxes on US citizens. And they are what matters because there's an election to be won.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Yeah, I'm sure he said that. But I was specifically responding of your point about him using the military "to exact tribute from our allies", which I took to mean his threats to dismante NATO and the USFK if the other members of those alliances don't pay their supposed fair share of the costs.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But you've also got statements like:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
quote:That one was from Meet the Press, but it's a fairly consistent statement from Trump's speeches and only slightly less frequent a reference than his beloved wall.
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.
For what it's worth, I don't think there is a neccessary contradiction between saying that you're gonna build up a powerful military, and that you're gonna pull it out of certain countries if they don't pay more for it.
quote:Good point, if Trump has explicitly portrayed the promised increase in revenue from allies as a counterweight to the increased miitary spending at home(which I don't doubt he has).
There's no contradiction, but it's no more than an attempt to trick people into believing that higher government spending can be done without higher taxes.
quote:The government spends more each year than it did the previous, with or without higher taxes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
it's no more than an attempt to trick people into believing that higher government spending can be done without higher taxes.
quote:The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces, and when they take power integrate them with the armed forces. So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But you've also got statements like:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
quote:That one was from Meet the Press, but it's a fairly consistent statement from Trump's speeches and only slightly less frequent a reference than his beloved wall.
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces,
quote:Trump is tailoring his speech to particular demographics. I don't think it necessarily indicates what he will actually do. Especially considering his message is mainly a mix of lies, contradictions, improbabilities, impossibilities and fantasy.
So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
quote:This is an excellent point, and liable to bedevil any attempts to predict what the future holds.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces,quote:Trump is tailoring his speech to particular demographics. I don't think it necessarily indicates what he will actually do. Especially considering his message is mainly a mix of lies, contradictions, improbabilities, impossibilities and fantasy.
So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
quote:Can paramilitaries develop in a land where fear of the government drives a lot of the organized together gun culture? I don't hear much about militia's getting behind Trump.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces, and when they take power integrate them with the armed forces. So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
Noticing people parading through the streets in tight black uniforms with a big gold T on them and a special Trump branded assault rifle is going to give you a much surer read.
quote:It doesn't stop its remaining a very good reason not to vote for him and to exhort everybody who would normally vote Republican not just to abstain, but, however distasteful they might find it, to vote for the other candidate.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:This is an excellent point, and liable to bedevil any attempts to predict what the future holds.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces,quote:Trump is tailoring his speech to particular demographics. I don't think it necessarily indicates what he will actually do. Especially considering his message is mainly a mix of lies, contradictions, improbabilities, impossibilities and fantasy.
So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
quote:The difference is that while Obama was facing a reasonable bad opponent (certainly from my point of view) their election would not have amounted to mass-suicide of the voting population and with the distinct possibility of taking a chunk of the rest of the world with them. (Although at the time it probably seemed like it - we just had no idea what was coming).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Obama was behind in the polls at certain points also. Otherwise, gulp.
quote:Actually the question was whether Trump counts as a "militarist". I'd have to say that promising to build a military so yuuuuge and powerful and awesome that it will solve all of America's foreign policy problems seems like an almost textbook example of militarism.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:The thing is that fascists tend to establish their own paramilitary forces, and when they take power integrate them with the armed forces. So, looking at statements about what someone is going to do with the existing military is not going to tell you whether someone is a fascist, an interventionist, or just someone shouting random stuff.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But you've also got statements like:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, then the most dramatic thing that happens(going by what Trump has so far promised) is that he over-rules the brass and pulls the troops from Korea. Which, again, is sort of the opposite of militarism.
quote:That one was from Meet the Press, but it's a fairly consistent statement from Trump's speeches and only slightly less frequent a reference than his beloved wall.
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.
quote:I'm amazed that Richard Cohen has managed to write about race in America without somehow becoming a public embarrassment to his friends and employer.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is an example of what you mean. It's a particularly good one because it's from the past, from the 1960s. For those who don't want to venture behind the POST paywall, Richard Cohen tells of the time when a Japanese file clerk was fired because the other female employees in the business didn't want to share a restroom with her. Today, if a business did that, the lawsuits would fly so fast the sky would darken.
quote:Who exactly are you referring to ? Comments like that of Doug Henwood (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/hillary-bill-clinton-president-my-turn-review-henwood-pollitt/) ?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What's amazed me, just reading around on various forums and blogs, is the intense hatred for Clinton among some Democrats, presumably Bernie supporters. Perhaps they are not Democrats?
quote:I'd count it as jingoism rather than militarism myself. (At least within the larger context of whether Trump counts as a fascist.) It's maybe pedantry, since jingoism is almost as pernicious as militarism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually the question was whether Trump counts as a "militarist". I'd have to say that promising to build a military so yuuuuge and powerful and awesome that it will solve all of America's foreign policy problems seems like an almost textbook example of militarism.
quote:There's not much else Sanders can do at this point. Let's look at those numbers again. (Last analysis here.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm wondering if Bernie will make a play for superdelegates at the Democratic convention, claim it should be a contested convention. There are some signs that he could turn things around in California, which might hurt her and work for him. I guess the assertion that he could do better than Hillary against Trump might get a few folks running scared. But it still looks very long odds-on Hillary.
quote:So if one takes the view that superdelegates don't count until they actually show up at the convention and vote, Sanders would need to win 536 of the remaining 781 delegates (almost 70%) in order to be ahead going in to the convention.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are 781 pledged delegates still up for grabs in nine jurisdictions (6 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia).
- Clinton 1,780 (+516)
- Sanders 1,490 (+43)
- O'Malley 0 (+1)
quote:Not quite what I meant - I didn't mean some old skeleton surfacing, I meant something new happening. Like a significant change in her health that would lead her to withdraw, or any number of even less likely things.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think that if anything like that existed it would have long ago surfaced by now. This is not the woman's first run for the office.
quote:The difficulty with this scenario is that it ignores the nature of the ex officio delegates. The vast majority of them are party stalwarts and activists, who have hung in through the fat years and the lean years, and are aware that Senator Sanders was not a Democrat until fairly recently. Unless it was blindingly obvious that he was the only possible way to save the Democratic party from fiery oblivion, they will cleave to a more establishment figure, even if they like Sen. Sanders' policies better.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm wondering if Bernie will make a play for superdelegates at the Democratic convention, claim it should be a contested convention. There are some signs that he could turn things around in California, which might hurt her and work for him. I guess the assertion that he could do better than Hillary against Trump might get a few folks running scared. But it still looks very long odds-on Hillary.
quote:Just one more reason why I'm so glad the UK's head of state is unelected
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Duterte is a reminder that it is perfectly possible for democracies to elect heads of state much worse even than Trump.
quote:Er, Duterte, like US presidents, has executive power. I know HMTQ has a withering stare that put Margaret Thatcher off her ease, but that ain't the same.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Just one more reason why I'm so glad the UK's head of state is unelected
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Duterte is a reminder that it is perfectly possible for democracies to elect heads of state much worse even than Trump.
quote:Bill Kristol has been consistently wrong about just about everything in American politics. I'm not really sure why he still has a public platform for his views. His last big electoral idea was that Sarah Palin would make an excellent vice president and be a great asset to the Republican ticket, so I think Kristol's track record needs to be taken into account when assessing predictions/analysis like this.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Trump Vs. Kristol On Third Party Run
Given that Kristol is one of the big names in the neo-conservative movement(*), and that Trump has been fairly inconsistent about endorsing the sacred cows of that movement, this hostile exchange should probably not be a much of a surprise.
quote:From Kristol's mouth to Trump's ear. It would spell his defeat for sure.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sarah Palin would make an excellent vice president and be a great asset to the Republican ticket
quote:Nice one. The paragraph gives me hope. That and my Obama t-shirt.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's outbursts are just part of his noisy stock in trade. The unveiling of his Veep running mate should be interesting. Will it be a candidate approved by what's left of the GOP establishment? Or another outsider with claque appeal? I've got a gut feel he'll play 'dangerous' rather than 'safe'. The ego is running wild.
quote:Inclined to agree, despite the weirdness going on.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not such a fool as to give the Quittah from Wasilla any more air time.
quote:The public petition reached the necessary number of signatories to get a (sort of) Parliamentary debate. The Gov. Came up with the usual weasel stuff: I don't believe there was a vote.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(btw, what happened to that idea of banning him from entering the UK? Guys, you should've followed through on that, now look what's gonna happen).
quote:(numbers are mine)
Expectations about how a presidential candidate should act
1. Expectation of trustworthiness
2. Expectation that a presidential candidate should know something about public affairs
3. Expectation about a candidate supporting their own party's ideology
4. National security concerns
5. Belief in tolerance and nondiscrimination
6. Tradition that your country is more important than your party
quote:Not sure it will matter. His main demographic is also pretty
Originally posted by fausto:
There are cases against him pending in both California and New York (and maybe elsewhere as well), so I think it's going to be trials, plural. But from what I'm hearing on TV they are not likely to begin until after the election. What we are likely to see is a lot of pot-stirring by the press every time a pre-trial motion is heard, though, so that may be even more effective in keeping the smarminess in front of the public.
so will believe his spew that it is the establishment out to get him.
quote:Reading the article, it seems that "national security concerns" is being used to include stuff like "Trump thinks NATO is obsolete, will possibly pull US troops out of South Korea, and will allow more countries to have nuclear weapons."
National security concerns
quote:Well, there is the argument(not that I'm gonna launch an extensive defense of it here) that it's the expansion of NATO that has provoked Russian sabre-rattling, not the other way around.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This would be a terrible time to disband NATO, with Russia sabre-rattling all over the place! Perhaps in the mid-90s it would have been a good idea. A lot of opportunities were missed in the 90s it seems to me.
quote:Nobody listens to the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Another thing...
quote:Reading the article, it seems that "national security concerns" is being used to include stuff like "Trump thinks NATO is obsolete, will possibly pull US troops out of South Korea, and will allow more countries to have nuclear weapons."
National security concerns
To take just one example, I used to belong to a Canadian political party, the socialist NDP, that advocated we withdraw from NATO. And I'm guessing that was a popular view held by many in the British Labour Party during the Michael Foot era as well.
And, while I think the NDP anti-NATO plank might not have been the best policy during the Cold War, I have given some serious thought to the idea that disbanding the alliance would make sense now(I'm always suspicious when organizations stick around past their initial mandate). Does that make me a wild-eyed madman who wants to push the world to the brink of disaster? I don't think so.
quote:(The original note has embedded links, but I don't know how to easily transfer those over.)
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
quote:Hillary will have to take some care. The referendum campaign on this side of the Pond has consisted of little more than "knocking copy" (about 95% IMHO) and if your presidential campaign goes the same way, then the turnout will be low which will be Trump's best hope.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I can hardly wait for primary season to be over (please!) and for the real debates between Trump and Hillary to begin. He is so easily bated and has such a short fuse (as witnessed by his response to Hillary's policy speech yesterday) that Hillary should have no trouble exposing him as the empty windbag that he is.
As for Paul Ryan finally endorsing him, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Once Trump is driven out of town tarred and feathered by Hillary, the egg on the faces of Ryan and his cronies will never be washed off.
quote:And nobody really listened to the NDP as a whole back in the '80s, when anti-NATO was a prominent part of the platform. You actually heard the idea discussed more as "Another reason not to vote NDP" rather than "Is this something Canada should think about?"
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Nobody listens to the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Another thing...
quote:Reading the article, it seems that "national security concerns" is being used to include stuff like "Trump thinks NATO is obsolete, will possibly pull US troops out of South Korea, and will allow more countries to have nuclear weapons."
National security concerns
To take just one example, I used to belong to a Canadian political party, the socialist NDP, that advocated we withdraw from NATO. And I'm guessing that was a popular view held by many in the British Labour Party during the Michael Foot era as well.
And, while I think the NDP anti-NATO plank might not have been the best policy during the Cold War, I have given some serious thought to the idea that disbanding the alliance would make sense now(I'm always suspicious when organizations stick around past their initial mandate). Does that make me a wild-eyed madman who wants to push the world to the brink of disaster? I don't think so.
quote:Well isn't that stupid criteria. Drumpf's Oompa Loompa skin and glued down troll doll hair aren't the reasons he would be a horrible leader. Though, they do call his eyesight and sanity into question.
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
quote:It's been their slogan for 20 years. And that's their problem-- they've worn it out. Whatever small grain of truth may lie behind the benghazi-gate, email-gate, whitewater-gate, Monicagate it's all just too too tired at this point. The public has long grown tired of it. It's such a worn out record, people have figured out she's ambitious in both the best and worst sorts of ways, they're either OK with that or they're not, but there's nothing new there for the GOP to exploit, and even if they did find some new dirt at this point it's just so much more of the same. Big. Huge. Yawn.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, the Trump staff will also be preparing plenty of stuff about Hillary, including the email stuff, Bill's philandering, and so on. 'Crooked Hillary' may become one of their key slogans.
quote:But she has that old charmer, Bill, the explainer-in-chief. We haven't really seen him in action yet, but once we shift to the general I expect he'll come out and work his magic. He's the real pro at this.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary is an awful candidate. Even long time leftist pundits are beginning to admit it.
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
She connects with no one other than those who would vote for her even if she were indicted.
quote:Yeah, Al Gore was supposedly tied up in the Blue Dress in 2000, and he still managed to beat Bush in the popular vote(even if Florida is tallied as having gone Republican). I'd imagine that issue has only lost whatever combustibility it had, in the ensuing 16 years.
It's been their slogan for 20 years. And that's their problem-- they've worn it out. Whatever small grain of truth may lie behind the benghazi-gate, email-gate, whitewater-gate, Monicagate it's all just too too tired at this point. The public has long grown tired of it. It's such a worn out record, people have figured out she's ambitious in both the best and worst sorts of ways, they're either OK with that or they're not, but there's nothing new there for the GOP to exploit, and even if they did find some new dirt at this point it's just so much more of the same. Big. Huge. Yawn.
quote:/personal-theory tangent alert/
Originally posted by HCH:
I frankly do not understand why people do not like Hilary Clinton. I do not find her voice irritating; I find it clear and precise, and her statements are informed and reasoned.
I think part of it is that some people are not fond of Bill Clinton. Of course, Hilary is not Bill.
I think another part of it is gender-based bias.
Can someone please explain this (rather than just rant)?
quote:That's the problem with nuclear proliferation. Everyone is sure that their own acquisition of nuclear weapons is a virtuous special case, unlike their untrustworthy neighbors they need nukes to protect themselves against. A more interesting case would be asking South Koreans about whether they think Japan should go nuclear.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Accroding to the article linked above, in South Korea there is "broad popular support for weaponization [ie. the ROK developing its own nuclear weapons]".
This is apparently supposed to send us into a panic over a President Trump accentuating these tendencies in the ROK. However, it also kinda clashes with the narrative about how "the whole world is watching in horror at the prospects of a Trump presidency".
quote:It should be obvious enough that no one should need to point this out, but:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And has anyone else noticed this Democratic rhetoric about how Trump will undo "decades of US foreign-policy consensus"?
I never knew American liberals regarded previous US administrations as such paragons of far-sighted geopolitical acumen and virtue.
quote:Hillary's support has never been strong amongst "leftists". She'll be campaigning as "The candidate who isn't Donald Trump".
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary is an awful candidate. Even long time leftist pundits are beginning to admit it.
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
She connects with no one other than those who would vote for her even if she were indicted.
And Trump hasn't even really started on her yet.
Debate performance can't save her from her flaws as a candidate. She will lose the cross-over vote, and won't draw a single new voter to the polls like Trump will. I believe she is in serious trouble.
quote:Put it this way. Whether or not the anti-Trump liberals are trying to portray previous statecraft as overflowing with acumen and virtue, it seems to me they are trying to paper over previous fault-lines, in order to make it look more like a uniformly positive history, in danger of disruption by the evil Trump.
Although maybe you're claiming that's how far American foreign policy discussion has deteriorated? Just being able to articulate a view consistent with the past foreign policy consensus is taken as a sign of "far-sighted geopolitical acumen and virtue".
quote:Yes, there is indeed a hypocrisy in wanting your own country to go nuclear, while thinking your regional rivals should be kept on a tight-leash by the Peace Constitution or whatever. I'm just saying that, to the exent that there are significant numbers of people in these countries who want to go nuclear(even if they would deny the same right to others), it kinda complicates the idea that the whole world is aghast at the idea of nuclear proliferation.
That's the problem with nuclear proliferation. Everyone is sure that their own acquisition of nuclear weapons is a virtuous special case, unlike their untrustworthy neighbors they need nukes to protect themselves against. A more interesting case would be asking South Koreans about whether they think Japan should go nuclear.
quote:To make this example less sci-fi, imagine that Trump is still the nominee, but he's running on a platform extolling the virtues of previous Republican admins, especially GWB.
Let's say the constitution had been amended last year, allowing presidents to seek a third term, and George W. Bush runs again on the GOP ticket. I don't think we'd be hearing a lot from the Democrats about how positive the past few decades of consensus has been, because a lot of their supporters would say "Wait a minute, that includes W., and he was a grade-A asshat!"
quote:Consensus in foreign policy doesn't mean agreeing on every single approach to every single problem, it's a term of art which indicates a general agreement on some very broad-brush, high-altitude questions. Like "the U.S. should oppose more countries joining the nuclear club" or "the U.S. should maintain a series of alliances with other industrialized democracies". Having a "foreign policy consensus" doesn't mean everyone agrees on everything.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Croesos wrote:
quote:Put it this way. Whether or not the anti-Trump liberals are trying to portray previous statecraft as overflowing with acumen and virtue, it seems to me they are trying to paper over previous fault-lines, in order to make it look more like a uniformly positive history, in danger of disruption by the evil Trump.
Although maybe you're claiming that's how far American foreign policy discussion has deteriorated? Just being able to articulate a view consistent with the past foreign policy consensus is taken as a sign of "far-sighted geopolitical acumen and virtue".
Let's say the constitution had been amended last year, allowing presidents to seek a third term, and George W. Bush runs again on the GOP ticket. I don't think we'd be hearing a lot from the Democrats about how positive the past few decades of consensus has been, because a lot of their supporters would say "Wait a minute, that includes W., and he was a grade-A asshat!"
quote:If "they would deny the same right [to develop nuclear weapons] to others" they're not really in favor of nuclear proliferation, they're in favor of special treatment for themselves.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Yes, there is indeed a hypocrisy in wanting your own country to go nuclear, while thinking your regional rivals should be kept on a tight-leash by the Peace Constitution or whatever. I'm just saying that, to the extent that there are significant numbers of people in these countries who want to go nuclear (even if they would deny the same right to others), it kinda complicates the idea that the whole world is aghast at the idea of nuclear proliferation.
That's the problem with nuclear proliferation. Everyone is sure that their own acquisition of nuclear weapons is a virtuous special case, unlike their untrustworthy neighbors they need nukes to protect themselves against. A more interesting case would be asking South Koreans about whether they think Japan should go nuclear.
quote:Not everyone thinks that. I think she is eminently watchable. Besides, isn't it Donald Trump who judges women by their appearance and voice? Don't tell me the Donald is actually a Shipmate going under the name of romanlion . . . ?
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
quote:True enough. I wonder though...
Consensus in foreign policy doesn't mean agreeing on every single approach to every single problem, it's a term of art which indicates a general agreement on some very broad-brush, high-altitude questions. Like "the U.S. should oppose more countries joining the nuclear club" or "the U.S. should maintain a series of alliances with other industrialized democracies". Having a "foreign policy consensus" doesn't mean everyone agrees on everything.
quote:(Cough) note I edited out the ad hominen.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Not everyone thinks that. I think she is eminently watchable. Besides, isn't it Donald Trump who judges women by their appearance and voice?
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
quote:Point of information: in the view of the rest of the planet, you have two political parties. One is right wing. The other is extraordinarily right wing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary is an awful candidate. Even long time leftist pundits are beginning to admit it.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
or the man's man whose appeal charms both male and female. .
quote:Love the re-worked chants
Originally posted by Stetson:
And has anyone else noticed this Democratic rhetoric about how Trump will undo "decades of US foreign-policy consensus?
I never knew American liberals regarded previous US administrations as such paragons of far-sighted geopolitical acumen and virtue.
HEY HEY LBJ
HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?
BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE WHO COULD BE PRESIDENT!!
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!
THOUGH WE DO GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR OPERATING WITHIN THE ACCEPTED PARAMETERS OF FOREIGN POLICY WISDOM!!
quote:Let's hope there are enough sensible people to ensure the wheels fall off trump's bandwagon come November.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are a few women charmed by Trump, but the sweeping majority of America women are violently repelled by him. Because we are sensible creatures.
quote:Well, not in this excerpt. Sure, she looked serious. But she's a candidate for a serious job.
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is almost un-watchable, with that abrasive shrieking voice and perma-terse expression, even when she tries to smile.
quote:...as well as the size of their... um, let's say... feet.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I always vote for people not based on their positions, or their behaving in public like adults, but on how pleasant I find their voices.
quote:No, bashing NAFTA does not equate to bashing human beings. Plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle have criticized NAFTA. But calling an entire group of people rapists and criminals or suggesting that a well-educated professional can't do his job because of ethnicity. Yeah, that is morally equivalent to bashing human beings
Originally posted by Stetson:
Simpson criticizes Trump for "the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the North American Free Trade Agrrement." Apparently, bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings.
quote:Yes, but when you list NAFTA-bashing in the same train of words as Mexican-bashing and Mexican-American-bashing, it's pretty clear(to me anyway) that you're trying to equate opposition to NAFTA with racism. If that wasn't what Simpson was trying to do, he should have separated his concerns about racism more clearly from his concerns about anti-trade.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:No, bashing NAFTA does not equate to bashing human beings. Plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle have criticized NAFTA. But calling an entire group of people rapists and criminals or suggesting that a well-educated professional can't do his job because of ethnicity. Yeah, that is morally equivalent to bashing human beings
Originally posted by Stetson:
Simpson criticizes Trump for "the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the North American Free Trade Agrrement." Apparently, bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings.
quote:Liberal concern about Trump's racism is justified, and not just something that is being fomented by establishment Democrats. It would have been better for me to say that Simpson was exploting liberal concern about Trump's racism, in order to piggyback other issues(eg. NAFTA) onto it.
Another example of fomenting liberal paranoia about Trump through bait-and-switch tactics.
quote:The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
quote:I don't think the full quote really helps your case. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that Simpson's ultimate concern about the anti-Mexican rhetoric is that it will lead to negative economic consequences for Canada.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you've misrepresented the nature of Jeffrey Simpson's column by your selective quotation.
The full sentence you rather drastically truncated runs:
quote:The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
quote:I'm not sure it's unjustified. Trump also claims to be very easygoing personally and not some kind of belligerent, thin-skinned crybaby. It's one of those "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" situations.
Originally posted by Stetson:
"Bait-and-switch" is a better description of the criticism of Trump's foreign-policy, since I think left-wingers are being led to believe that he is a belligerent warmonger, whereas when you read the content of the criticism, what he is really being attacked for is isolationism.
quote:
And Saudi Arabians "take such advantage of us with the oil . . . and they laugh at this country.
quote:
I know many of the people in China. I know many of the big business people. And they’re laughing at us. They think we’re stupid and our representatives are so stupid, that they can’t even believe what they’re getting away with.
quote:
We have become a laughingstock, the world's whipping boy.
quote:
After Syria, our enemies are laughing!
quote:
Mexican leadership has been laughing at us for many years but now it’s no longer laughter—it’s disbelief...
quote:
The Persians are great negotiators. They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making on nuclear.
quote:So while Trump's stated policy (to the extent such a thing exists) may be classified as some form of isolationism, most of the "belligerent warmonger" analysis rests instead on the fairly clear observation that Donald Trump is a very thin-skinned man who already thinks everyone is laughing at America and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation.
ISIS is laughing at us.
quote:This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:I don't think the full quote really helps your case. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that Simpson's ultimate concern about the anti-Mexican rhetoric is that it will lead to negative economic consequences for Canada.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you've misrepresented the nature of Jeffrey Simpson's column by your selective quotation.
The full sentence you rather drastically truncated runs:
quote:The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
If Simpson is concerned about Trump's racism, he should have written a column on that. If he was concerned about Trump's position of economic integration, he should have written a column on that. (Or at least, divided the two topics in his column.) Instead of talking about the two things as if they were a part of one seamless entity.
quote:Yeah, I agree. Trump's manic inferiority-complex, especially projected upon the nation as a whole, is definitely a cause for concern. But that observation hasn't so far seemed to be the main tact taken by his opponents, probably because it's kind of an intangible trait(as compared to, for example, racist statements).
So while Trump's stated policy (to the extent such a thing exists) may be classified as some form of isolationism, most of the "belligerent warmonger" analysis rests instead on the fairly clear observation that Donald Trump is a very thin-skinned man who already thinks everyone is laughing at America and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation.
quote:Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation
quote:Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
quote:And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
quote:What follows is really a "no true Scottsman" argument, but... I'm (perhaps naively) suspicious of the connection between evangelicals and Trump. Even in the Atlantic article, the evidence they're using to support the connection they're drawing is that Trump is winning in states with a lot of evangelicals.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What puzzles me is how so many Christian people can support Trump. It would be harder to find a less Christ-like politician, not that this is a very high bar. And after all the previous howling about immorality (Bill Clinton) or possibly being a Muslim (Obama) you would think Trump would be anathema. An article analyzing this question.
But the influential evangelical leadership is really staying out of this one (and yes, I think it's irresponsible to "stay out of it" when the stakes are this high).quote:The worry isn't that Mexico will quit NAFTA over Trump's slanders. Trump has already said NAFTA has been a disaster for the US; Simpson mentions Trump's bigotry in passing as supporting evidence of his threat to economic integration.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
quote:"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
quote:It will indeed.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, there's this: Trump meeting with evangelical leaders later this month. It will be interesting to see a) who turns up and b) what they say. Clearly Trump is angling for a large number of endorsements.
quote:It is reckoned that the "Quiet Tories", ie those who didn't answer, gave false responses or fell outside the sample won the 2015 election for the Conservatives in Britain.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
4. Trump supporters include large numbers of evangelicals who won't own up to their support in public.
Of all the possibilities, I find #4 the scariest by far.
quote:Oh I would, for the novelty value, after he loses. I would also half-inch everything that was not nailed down.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A brief polling roundup of Trump's problems with women.
In related news, bookings at Trump hotels and casinos has nosedived. It's bad marketing, to be repellent. I don't patronize casinos, but I certainly will never stay in a Trump hotel ever.
quote:*tangent* I thought hubby had taught me all the Britishisms. This was a new one for me.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I would also half-inch everything that was not nailed down.
quote:I'm not sure I understand your parting sbot there. What is it you think that I am making up about what Trump said?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:The worry isn't that Mexico will quit NAFTA over Trump's slanders. Trump has already said NAFTA has been a disaster for the US; Simpson mentions Trump's bigotry in passing as supporting evidence of his threat to economic integration.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
As for this:
quote:"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
quote:So, if Trump gets "taken to the cleaners", that means North Korea wins whatever argument they're having? In other words, Trump would be(if only inadvertantly) soft-on-Communism?
Originally posted by Gee D:
I imagine that any talk Trump has with Kim Jong Un will be along the lines of bringing the young fellow back into line, getting him on the rails again, that sort of patronising talk. He would have no comprehension of what Kim's position would be, and would be taken to the cleaners.
quote:I kind of like the concept of "We're all behind him...I hope he changes direction."
“We’re all behind him now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned, adding that it’s time for unifying the party, not “settling scores and grudges.” “I hope he’ll change his direction.”
quote:Yeah, it's kinda like "Sure, I trust him to drive me home! Hope he sobers up."
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
From an article on Trump's judge issues.
quote:I kind of like the concept of "We're all behind him...I hope he changes direction."
“We’re all behind him now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned, adding that it’s time for unifying the party, not “settling scores and grudges.” “I hope he’ll change his direction.”
quote:I can just see it. The Battle of the Bad Hairstyles.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
quote:Ps, Kim Jong Un has already been quoted as supporting Trump rather than Clinton.
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:I can just see it. The Battle of the Bad Hairstyles.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
Trouble is both of them would be powerful and I don't think either of them could laugh at himself.
Huia
quote:Well, after reading that Atlantic article I was left with similar questions. I wondered how they distinguish between something like your possibility 4, and a variant where people in general (as opposed to evangelicals in particular) are supporting Trump whilst not saying so [ISTM that the states mentioned as having large numbers of evangelicals also have large numbers of conservatives generally].
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What follows is really a "no true Scottsman" argument, but... I'm (perhaps naively) suspicious of the connection between evangelicals and Trump. Even in the Atlantic article, the evidence they're using to support the connection they're drawing is that Trump is winning in states with a lot of evangelicals.
quote:Really? I wouldn't have thought it would be that hard to figure out.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:I'm not sure I understand your parting sbot there. What is it you think that I am making up about what Trump said?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As for this:
quote:"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
http://tinyurl.com/js2jhvf
quote:Accurate but misleading. I believe the Obama administration's position is to favor the resumption of the six-party talks rather than direct, bilateral negotiations. I believe the underlying premise is that any agreement North Korea reached separately with the United States would run aground when clashing with the interests of one of the other interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan.) So while it's accurate to portray this as a "contrast", I'm not sure it's necessarily more "dovish". If anything, two-party talks promise to sacrifice regional stability to obtain bilateral accord.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Furthermore, the article claims that Trump's position "contrasts with Presient Barack Obama's policy" of not dealing with KJU directly.
So, assuming Reuters is paraphrasing him correctly, Trump's current position is more dovish than that of Obama or Clinton.
quote:Think of Munich and Chamberlain. Trump would have no idea of what was happening and would be done over 3 times backwards before breakfast. The North Koreans would be fighting hard to keep straight faces.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:So, if Trump gets "taken to the cleaners", that means North Korea wins whatever argument they're having? In other words, Trump would be(if only inadvertantly) soft-on-Communism?
Originally posted by Gee D:
I imagine that any talk Trump has with Kim Jong Un will be along the lines of bringing the young fellow back into line, getting him on the rails again, that sort of patronising talk. He would have no comprehension of what Kim's position would be, and would be taken to the cleaners.
quote:Well, yes, but bilateral talks ARE what the North Koreans have been demanding. All I'm saying is that it's somewhat of a turnaround for a GOP politician to be accused of being TOO willing to meet the terms set by an anti-American, Communist regime.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Accurate but misleading. I believe the Obama administration's position is to favor the resumption of the six-party talks rather than direct, bilateral negotiations. I believe the underlying premise is that any agreement North Korea reached separately with the United States would run aground when clashing with the interests of one of the other interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan.) So while it's accurate to portray this as a "contrast", I'm not sure it's necessarily more "dovish". If anything, two-party talks promise to sacrifice regional stability to obtain bilateral accord.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Furthermore, the article claims that Trump's position "contrasts with Presient Barack Obama's policy" of not dealing with KJU directly.
So, assuming Reuters is paraphrasing him correctly, Trump's current position is more dovish than that of Obama or Clinton.
quote:Trump proposes direct meetings because he seems to think he's going to negotiate everything personally. Exactly what he would be negotiating - well, there's no real reason to think that he's given this any thought whatsoever, is there?
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ Just to re-encapsulate my point above...
If a DEMOCRAT proposed direct meetings with KJU, his fellow Democrats would do a collective facepalm, the Republicans would scream that he was a traitor, and Ralph Nader would say it was a refrshing change from the usual confrontational foreign-policy.
quote:Or better still, after the convention has adjourned.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, the AP declared her the victor. I guarantee you she'd far rather have had this announced after Tuesday's polls had closed.
quote:But it does send them back into the sewer where they customarily hang out.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Trump's loss doesn't make his constituency disappear.
quote:It is virtually guaranteed that at this moment in time there is at least one person - savvier than Trump - who plans on being a public figure and who is looking at Trump's campaign and thinking "I bet I can make the same dynamics work for me".
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:But it does send them back into the sewer where they customarily hang out.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Trump's loss doesn't make his constituency disappear.
quote:Yes, but when people complain about Trump's policies, the criticism isn't that they're not well thought-out(though that may be true), but that they're just so far outside the mainstream.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Trump proposes direct meetings because he seems to think he's going to negotiate everything personally. Exactly what he would be negotiating - well, there's no real reason to think that he's given this any thought whatsoever, is there?
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ Just to re-encapsulate my point above...
If a DEMOCRAT proposed direct meetings with KJU, his fellow Democrats would do a collective facepalm, the Republicans would scream that he was a traitor, and Ralph Nader would say it was a refrshing change from the usual confrontational foreign-policy.
quote:Quite a lot in my anecdotal experience. In fact, this would be the vast majority of my evangelical friends.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
quote:Our youngest and some of his friends were enthusiastically supporting that same candidate -- even caucused, and were delegates for the second round! They were willing to hold their nose and vote for the other candidate should the other one win. But many of them, our son said, have decided to write in a third party, or abstain. It's very sad, that the party couldn't figure out a way to keep these kids engaged and excited.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Meanwhile my son voted for the first time today, for a candidate he's enthused about who has him excited about politics and making a difference-- and who our party has already written off.
quote:From this side of the pond I just have a really hard time with the idea that unless both a candidate's private life and all of their policy aims coincide exactly with one's own set of ticked boxes in these respects, it is a violation of one's conscience to vote for them.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
quote:Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah I think the DNC really blew it. I expect Clinton to be a hard campaigner-- and she's earned her place at the table in the hardest way. But the DNC coulda done a whole lot better in making sure the voices of ALL Democrats were heard. If they lose all these passionate idealistic millennials they're gonna have a very hard time in future
quote:And we all thank you!
Originally posted by simontoad:
Well, I teared up when our SBS News announced that Hilary was the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.What a momentous achievement.
I won't get all Helen Reddy on you just yet, but I can hear the music. Congratulations Hilary and all women the world over.
quote:You need to listen to some of these kids. They're not being idealistic. They are trying to vote in what they consider their own self-interest. And they honestly feel like there's not a dime's worth of difference between what will happen TO THEM, whether Trump or Hillary wins. Hillary is, in their opinion, a hawkish hawk, a warmonger, so more of them and their friends will end up in pointless wars overseas. Just like they will with the bellicose and irrational Trump. Trump and Hillary both support the banksters on Wall Street, and so the country will continue to move towards a gig economy with no security, little opportunity, and no way to handle the crushing debt of an education -- and no way to support yourself without that education. Hillary and Trump are both likely to support policies that continue to speed global warming, which these kids feel is a real threat to their own futures.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
quote:I'm not speculating on whether the passionately pro-Sanders millennials will switch to Hillary-- certainly one hopes so, for the sake of the country.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah I think the DNC really blew it. I expect Clinton to be a hard campaigner-- and she's earned her place at the table in the hardest way. But the DNC coulda done a whole lot better in making sure the voices of ALL Democrats were heard. If they lose all these passionate idealistic millennials they're gonna have a very hard time in future
quote:IMHO Josephine is spot on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
quote:No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
quote:Well, that's fair enough, in fact, it's grand. I wonder if 8 years under Trump (possibly), might alter their views a smidgeon?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
quote:Agreed! I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, that's fair enough, in fact, it's grand. I wonder if 8 years under Trump (possibly), might alter their views a smidgeon?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
quote:Actually, I have quite a few first-gen college students in my classes who are minorities, including some dream act kids, who are also saying there's not much difference. I'm quite sure they won't vote for Trump-- some will vote for Hillary as "least bad", some will vote for a 3rd party candidate, some will stay home (some are undocumented so don't have an option). But the narrative that Clinton is an establishment candidate who isn't offering any real change is not just coming from the privileged. In fact, I'm hearing it far more from those on the margins who feel like there's no one speaking for them. Again, the heavy-handed moves from the DNC in the last few months didn't help that impression.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
quote:This seems very familiar to me, as people here don't vote Labour in the hope of real change. Ha! But I think quite a lot vote defensively, hoping that they won't vandalize stuff like the NHS quite as much. It's not heroic, of course.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, I have quite a few first-gen college students in my classes who are minorities, including some dream act kids, who are also saying there's not much difference. I'm quite sure they won't vote for Trump-- some will vote for Hillary as "least bad", some will vote for a 3rd party candidate, some will stay home (some are undocumented so don't have an option). But the narrative that Clinton is an establishment candidate who isn't offering any real change is not just coming from the privileged. In fact, I'm hearing it far more from those on the margins who feel like there's no one speaking for them. Again, the heavy-handed moves from the DNC in the last few months didn't help that impression.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
quote:I think "lack of critical thought" is an overstatement. It's really just youthful idealism-- which is a gift we shouldn't toss away. It's not that they don't recognize that Clinton is a better option than Trump, it's that they are frustrated that they don't have any other options, and that the system seemed rigged from the very beginning. Again, I can't fault Clinton here as much as the DNC itself. And again, they are smart enough not to vote for Trump. That's not going to happen. It's what they will do instead that is up for grabs.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There has been an enormous failing in the US educational system if many of the idealistic young cannot spot a pin's difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Or maybe they just want to man the barricades to bring the revolution in? Anger is a very powerful emotion. Kind of reminds me of "Do you hear the people sing" from "Les Miserables". But the situation of the idealistic young in the US and "les miserables" in 19th century France is hardly the same.
But I am a bit bothered. What you are describing, plus some of the social media twittering, sounds suspiciously like the thought processes of a claque on the left. With about as damaged a capability for critical thought as the claque on the right. A descent into tribalism.
I guess the anger will burn out, and they will in the main vote for the perceived Hillary-louse, rather than the perceived Trump-double-louse. Is there any real doubt that Trump is lousier than Hillary?
quote:It's part and parcel with the author's refreshingly frank definition of American evangelicalism and it's interests.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Quite a lot in my anecdotal experience. In fact, this would be the vast majority of my evangelical friends.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
I found it interesting/irksome-- but also quite familiar-- that the author felt the need to lay out the case against Trump, but then dismisses Clinton with a single sentence, "of course we can't vote for Clinton..." As if it were so self-evident there was no need to build a case for it as he had done for the more obviously unChristian choice.
quote:In other words, American evangelicalism is defined as being anti-abortion and anti-gay. Whatever your standing with the various points of the Bebbington quadrilateral or other theological definitions, you won't be accepted as an "evangelical" in the U.S. unless you meet those two points. At any rate, because the Democrats generally and Hillary Clinton specifically are in favor of equal rights for homosexuals (a.k.a. "restricting freedom of religion") and opposed to criminalizing abortion (a.k.a. "failure to protect the most vulnerable lives"), given this perspective it is "so self-evident there was no need to build a case" against her candidacy for American evangelicals, as Alan Noble understands the term.
As we see it, a failure to protect the most vulnerable lives and our freedom of religion in a pluralist society is a direct threat to the foundations of that society.
quote:So, fairly affluent and self-absorbed kids who will have the wherewithal to travel to a friendlier jurisdiction if abortion is outlawed, or who will never have to work for the minimum wage so they don't care what it is, or who won't feel the effects of resurgent racism? You're right, that doesn't sound particularly idealistic.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:You need to listen to some of these kids. They're not being idealistic. They are trying to vote in what they consider their own self-interest. And they honestly feel like there's not a dime's worth of difference between what will happen TO THEM, whether Trump or Hillary wins.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
quote:[citation needed]. Especially given the attack ads we're certain to be treated to of Hillary Clinton saying "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business", contrasted with Donald Trump's outright climate change denialism.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Hillary and Trump are both likely to support policies that continue to speed global warming, which these kids feel is a real threat to their own futures.
quote:AFAICT Hilary is slightly to the right of Blair (as was her husband on social matters), it's less evident as the Overton window in the US is further to the right than it is over here.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I guess there is a point where one just can't take any more nonsense from the centrists, such as Blair, who are as warlike and neoliberal as the right-wing. I don't know if Hillary is like Blair really.
quote:Agreed. But to the idealistic young, the excessive influence of superdelegates feels rigged. For those of us voting in California, the preemptive announcement of Clinton as the
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The accusation of "rigging" doesn't seem to me to have any real basis in fact. Compared say to the cynical gerrymandering of the House of Representative districts (in favour of the GOP), the Democratic primary processes look pretty straightforward to me.
I "get" the arguments re superdelegates, both ways. But Hillary is now certain to get more pledged delegates than Bernie in any case. She's also received a lot more votes than Bernie. How has she not won?
To quote Bernie, "I can do arithmetic". Maintaining the "rigging" allegations looks pretty silly.
quote:As noted earlier, that declaration was actually made by the Associated Press, an entity over which the DNC has no control. Clinton's tweeted response seems pretty pitch perfect.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreed. But to the idealistic young, the excessive influence of superdelegates feels rigged. For those of us voting in California, the preemptive announcement of Clinton as the de facto nominee days before our polls opened felt like rigging. Scuffles over email lists, etc.
All of which pales compared to the shenanigans of Rove and his minions on the other side. And, again, is nothing to fault Clinton for-- she is allowed to fight hard for a win, she's earned it. But I think it was a stupid misstep by the DNC that will hurt our appeal to millennials.
quote:
We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!
quote:No.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
quote:Agh, yes, my mistake.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
that declaration was actually made by the Associated Press, an entity over which the DNC has no control. Clinton's tweeted response seems pretty pitch perfect.
quote:
We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!
quote:Not for me to say, but I hope not. But beyond myself personally, there are many of my fellow evangelicals who are at not really "gay affirming" (e.g. who would oppose same-sex marriage) but still would recognize that Trump crosses an unholy line-- both in his rhetoric about gays, but also his rhetoric about, well, everyone who isn't a rich white male with improbably day-glo hair and teeny tiny feet to compensate for.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Eh? Cliffdweller, you're not really saying you're anti-gay, are you? I said, 'and' not 'or'.
quote:You'd think so, but apparently it's problematic for folks like Alan Noble (the author of the Vox article cited by Josephine). The objections all seem to boil down to the idea that Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises. Given that Team R has been playing this game for decades (vote for an abortion ban, actually get an upper-income tax cut!) I can only surmise it's because Trump is just a lot more brazen about it than past Republican politicians.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
quote:From what I've seen, GOP presidents ARE inclined to appoint judges(at various levels) who, for example, take a narrow interpretation of Roe V. Wade(without actually overturning it), and implement bans on abortion funding, both domestically and overseas.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:You'd think so, but apparently it's problematic for folks like Alan Noble (the author of the Vox article cited by Josephine). The objections all seem to boil down to the idea that Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises. Given that Team R has been playing this game for decades (vote for an abortion ban, actually get an upper-income tax cut!) I can only surmise it's because Trump is just a lot more brazen about it than past Republican politicians.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
quote:Reminds me of a well known storyline from a Tony Campolo sermon on his first visit to the UK. Telling about a sermon given to a ultra-conservative church in the US.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It also seems so clueless. Yeah, sure we were a bit uncomfortable when he started advocating violence against those who disagree with you, spreading lies about whole groups of people and talking about bombing the families of people he doesn't like into oblivion. But when you start using coarse language that's when it crosses a line.
quote:I'm glad he was blessed with the ability to read the hearts and minds of a church full of people. What a prophet.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Reminds me of a well known storyline from a Tony Campolo sermon on his first visit to the UK. Telling about a sermon given to a ultra-conservative church in the US.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It also seems so clueless. Yeah, sure we were a bit uncomfortable when he started advocating violence against those who disagree with you, spreading lies about whole groups of people and talking about bombing the families of people he doesn't like into oblivion. But when you start using coarse language that's when it crosses a line.
"Yesterday and everyday , according to UN statistics, 30,000 children aged under one year died because of lack of food, water, proper care. And the truth is, you don't give a shit. And what's more, you care more about the fact that I said shit than those 30,000 deaths a day".
quote:Translation:
Some discussion about Trump's 'refreshing' directness compared with Hillary's professional side-stepping.
quote:Uh? In the US the emphasis on personal responsibility has always been there, sometimes to cruel effect. The boast about being 'a maker not a taker' is heard in this context; I have a friend who qualifies for food stamps but does not dare to file for them because her neighbors would denigrate it.
But from this side of the pond, the emphasis on personal responsibility, the suspicion of liberalism, social intervention, still seems to have something of a hold in US conservative evangelicalism.
quote:It seems to me that there are several kinds of divide in political attitudes, and one is between people who are strongly optimistic about the consequences of change and people who are not.
posted by Josephine
I got curious when my son started talking about people he knew who were planning to vote for either Trump or Sanders, whichever one ended up on the ballot in November. How could someone say that? It made no sense to me!
quote:But Brenda has a point. The American Evangelical Right as a generalization is very involved in public life, but not in feeding the homeless, but in dictating other people's morality. Thankfully there are exceptions, but they don't get the airtime, and people speaking out against the Great Evangelical Morality Machine, like Rachel Held Evans, get ignored by non-Christians and rape threats from GLEs.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We're at cross purposes, Brenda. I'm not talking about policing the personal morality of others. Think Dom Helder Camara. The difference between acts of charity and supporting social reform in favour of the disadvantaged. Or, more recently, the themes explored by Jim Wallis in God's Politics.
quote:Short of violent revolution in North America, that system is not going to change substantially in the next decade, even if Che Guevara rose from the grave and became president. That's something that needs to change slowly if democratic methods are to be used. The job of your youth, should they choose to accept it, is to shape and participate in that change.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
quote:RHE is one of my favorites (although she self-identifies as "post-evangelical"). She is a voice for the new, younger, and far far more liberal/socially conscious generation of evangelicals. Others include Shane Clairborne, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and the late Glen Stassen.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
Thanks for mentioning Rachel. Don't think I'd heard of her, but I'm reading some of her work online.
quote:You obviously havn't heard much North American evangelical preaching for the last 20 years.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:I'm glad he was blessed with the ability to read the hearts and minds of a church full of people. What a prophet.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Reminds me of a well known storyline from a Tony Campolo sermon on his first visit to the UK. Telling about a sermon given to a ultra-conservative church in the US.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It also seems so clueless. Yeah, sure we were a bit uncomfortable when he started advocating violence against those who disagree with you, spreading lies about whole groups of people and talking about bombing the families of people he doesn't like into oblivion. But when you start using coarse language that's when it crosses a line.
"Yesterday and everyday , according to UN statistics, 30,000 children aged under one year died because of lack of food, water, proper care. And the truth is, you don't give a shit. And what's more, you care more about the fact that I said shit than those 30,000 deaths a day".
quote:Excellent!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I like Rachel Held Evans and I think if I lived in the US I'd be describing myself as post evangelical as well.
But this made me smile!
quote:The Libertarians will be running Gary Johnson again, with William Weld as his running mate. According to an article I read in the Economist, the polls have him taking more votes from Democrats than from Republicans, though at this point I would take any polling about their prospects with a grain of salt.
(c) A third party candidate gets enough of the vote to throw the election into the House of Representatives which will then certainly elect a Republican.
quote:All quite plausible, and of varying degrees of terrifying.
Originally posted by HCH:
This election season has made me think of some bad scenarios:
(a) Many supporters of Bernie Sanders decide not to vote at all or decide to vote for Trump and thus swing the outcome of the election.
(b) A narrow election leaves Hilary in the White House and Republicans running both houses of Congress. The Republicans decide not to confirm any federal court judges nominated by any Democrat; they can then wait for a liberal Supreme Court judge to die, giving the conservatives a 4-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
(c) A third party candidate gets enough of the vote to throw the election into the House of Representatives which will then certainly elect a Republican.
(d) The Republican party, stuck with Trump, talks him into having a vice presidential candidate who is someone they like. If Trump wins, they will then wait 90 days, impeach him (he's bound to provide plenty of grounds), convict him (aided by eager Democrats) and then have the president they want.
I think I had one or two more of these, but they slip my mind.
quote:I have. In fact some may classify me as a conservative evangelical- although I would dispute that categorization. I have a feeling that if Billy Graham had stood up and declared to a church full of liberal evangelicals that they didn't give a damn about the number of babies being aborted with the same level of arrogant certainty that Tony Campolo gave in his speech I wonder if the reaction of those praising Tony Campolo would be distinctly different. I guess there isn't a problem judging the hearts of room full of people if its someone else's ox that is being gored.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You obviously havn't heard much North American evangelical preaching for the last 20 years.
quote:I did misquote him. What he said wasn't a universal criticism. Basically, the comment falls into "if the cap fits, wear it" category. Compared with Amos 5, addressed to analogous indifferences amongst the religious in the Northern Kingdom towards the poverty and injustice in their society, it's pretty mild stuff.
“I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
quote:A latter day Amos would come in handy right about now.
The spectacle of self-proclaimed Christian conservatives cheering a foul-mouthed ex-casino owner for his pledge to turn away refugees tells you pretty much everything you need to know about what the religious right has become—or maybe what it always was.
quote:Political backgrounds, hmmm. American security decisions are overseen by politicians. People whose only qualification for Intelligence is the dubious intelligence of the electorate.
Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds. (bold mine)
quote:Chalk and oranges. And I'm not aware of conservative Christians doing anything to ameliorate and prevent the social causes of abortion. Far from it. Apart from harassing women, committing arson and murder of course.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:I have. In fact some may classify me as a conservative evangelical- although I would dispute that categorization. I have a feeling that if Billy Graham had stood up and declared to a church full of liberal evangelicals that they didn't give a damn about the number of babies being aborted with the same level of arrogant certainty that Tony Campolo gave in his speech I wonder if the reaction of those praising Tony Campolo would be distinctly different. I guess there isn't a problem judging the hearts of room full of people if its someone else's ox that is being gored.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You obviously havn't heard much North American evangelical preaching for the last 20 years.
quote:And making it illegal to have a miscarriage.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm not aware of conservative Christians doing anything to ameliorate and prevent the social causes of abortion. Far from it. Apart from harassing women, committing arson and murder of course.
quote:Aye, theoretically in Utah and all too Godlessly real in the ironically named El Salvador.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And making it illegal to have a miscarriage.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm not aware of conservative Christians doing anything to ameliorate and prevent the social causes of abortion. Far from it. Apart from harassing women, committing arson and murder of course.
quote:I'm sure the GOP establishment must be in despair. Loved this quote from that linked article.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, Trump calls himself "the least racist person" on earth while continuing to refer to Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas," even eliciting war whoops from his audience.
quote:And Megyn Kelly of Fox News(!) sticks the knife in re the attack on the judge.
“Get used to it,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, a Trump critic. “This is your life for the next five months.”
quote:It has been my experience that racists never think of themselves as racist.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, Trump calls himself "the least racist person" on earth while continuing to refer to Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas," even eliciting war whoops from his audience.
quote:I heard someone say the reason he doesn't want to release them is that he hardly made any money (like, in the neighborhood of half a million) and is embarrassed by that.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a reason, I just know it, why Trump is so very reluctant to release his tax returns. I hope he will be pressured into doing so before the election, because I am certain there are some nasty skeletons in them.
quote:"I'm not a racist, but..."
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It has been my experience that racists never think of themselves as racist.
quote:Oh sure. And since it is his entire stock in trade as far as bragging rights, it would be a devastating blow, I agree. But I still want to see them. He's not running for president for his own comfort, after all. (Inevitable analogies to tiny hands omitted here.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I heard someone say the reason he doesn't want to release them is that he hardly made any money (like, in the neighborhood of half a million) and is embarrassed by that.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a reason, I just know it, why Trump is so very reluctant to release his tax returns. I hope he will be pressured into doing so before the election, because I am certain there are some nasty skeletons in them.
quote:Or both.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.... Either you've decided she's a lying, ambitious, immoral scumbag or you've decided she's a strong woman overcoming ridiculous sexism. ....
quote:Lip service.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The GOP has always been hot on the constitution.
quote:No thanks, but thanks for the offer.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sod me mousethief!
quote:Not sure where I said that.
You can be FORCED to have a C-section in America?!
quote:Well, according to Maria Stopes UK, abortion is illegal in England up to 24 weeks, except in cases of fetal abnormalities.
You can be FORCED to have a C-section in America?! An un-sectioned ... no wordplay intended ... person? I hope to God that none of those travesties could happen in the UK.
quote:
Well, according to Maria Stopes UK, abortion is illegal in England after 24 weeks, except in cases of fetal abnormalities.
quote:Well, he has already made one, that I saw on Slate or somewhere. It was pretty generic, along the lines of "This is very tragic", and not much else. I'm assuming he'll say more in due course.
I'm waiting in sickened anticipation to see if Trump makes a statement about the Pulse massacre
quote:There was a recent, very tragic, case where a c-section was mandated for a woman being detained under the mental health act - who was judged to lack capacity due to severe mental illness. It is extremely rare though.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Martin wrote:
quote:Well, according to Maria Stopes UK, abortion is illegal in England up to 24 weeks, except in cases of fetal abnormalities.
You can be FORCED to have a C-section in America?! An un-sectioned ... no wordplay intended ... person? I hope to God that none of those travesties could happen in the UK.
So, theoreticially anyway, if a woman more than 24-weeks pregnant tried to procure an abortion, either she, the doctor, or both would be arrested. IOW, a woman can be forced to give birth, yes.
And in a case where it has been deternmined that a caesarean is the safest way for the woman to give birth, I assume it would be a caesarean that she would be compelled to have.
Whether this could actually happen, or if the UK authorities just turn a blind-eye to late term procedures unrelated to fetal abnormalities, I don't know.
quote:According to the New York Times (sorry it's behind a paywall if you read too many articles), Trump is, of course, blaming Obama:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Just to change the subject, I'm waiting in sickened anticipation to see if Trump makes a statement about the Pulse massacre.
quote:
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam.’ For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
quote:Whether our grandkids can successfully evangelize their grandkids will depend entirely on how well the church as a whole cleans up its act between now and then.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live in a state where they have mandated unmedically-called for trabs-vaginal probes. Just for fun, you know. In the service of anti-abortion legislation and the worship of the fetus (the moment you're born you're off the pedestal and on your own, of course) enormously dangerous legislation has been passed.
Young people are repelled by this kind of ramming religion through with legislation. We're losing this generation for Christ, and we may never get them back.
quote:This reveals the worst of the Clinton method, I hope. However, it also shows that when people speak up in the US, this sort of thing is stomped on.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, Hillary gives us another reason to wonder if we really can support her after all.
quote:That's weird. Perhaps being ignorant and unconstitutional is catching? Even for an old nonconformist like me, there is a massive difference between challenging the substance of specific government legislation (free speech and protest) and challenging the authority of the legislature to make such law as it can get approved via legitimate democratic means.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I attended a church today where the priest pretty much said in his sermon (not using these exact words, of course) that Congress had no business passing laws that were contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
quote:To judge from a statement by the gunman's ex-wife, he was unstable, probably bipolar, abusive and capable of flying off the handle at the smallest provocation. There are also statements that he had very recently purchased weapons, quite legitimately.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm going to try and give it a week before talking about the Orlando Massacre.
quote:Yeah, I regretted posting that: see sig.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:To judge from a statement by the gunman's ex-wife, he was unstable, probably bipolar, abusive and capable of flying off the handle at the smallest provocation. There are also statements that he had very recently purchased weapons, quite legitimately.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm going to try and give it a week before talking about the Orlando Massacre.
Some folks will think that President Obama has made political capital out of this. I don't know about that; with the facts out there, his comments seemed to me to hit the spot. Whereas Candidate Trump's tweet struck me as egotistical and disgracefully self-serving.
quote:For some reason this has become a really big thing with a certain segment of Republicans, the idea that using the words "Radical Islam" is some kind of magic spell that will solve all problems. Kind of like "Rumpelstiltskin" for the modern age.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the New York Times (sorry it's behind a paywall if you read too many articles), Trump is, of course, blaming Obama:
quote:
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam.’ For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
quote:It kind of is magic. Specifically an illusion or distraction. If they can get their audience to focus on that, they can continue doing the things which fuel extremism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason this has become a really big thing with a certain segment of Republicans, the idea that using the words "Radical Islam" is some kind of magic spell that will solve all problems. Kind of like "Rumpelstiltskin" for the modern age.
quote:I don't think they read anything, except perhaps the National Enquirer.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must remember however that his supporters surely do not read The New Yorker.
quote:That is a mischaracterisation. They read more than that, Fox "News" has a website which contains words.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I don't think they read anything, except perhaps the National Enquirer.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must remember however that his supporters surely do not read The New Yorker.
quote:The N.E. is pitched far above the heads of your average Republican trencher.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I don't think they read anything, except perhaps the National Enquirer.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must remember however that his supporters surely do not read The New Yorker.
quote:The biggest magic the phrase elicits is causing the listeners to stare intently at the brown guy/ headscarf/ person-with-foreign-sounding-name/ guy doing math-- and therefore not notice that they're quietly robbing whatever's left of the middle/ working class blind.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:For some reason this has become a really big thing with a certain segment of Republicans, the idea that using the words "Radical Islam" is some kind of magic spell that will solve all problems. Kind of like "Rumpelstiltskin" for the modern age.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the New York Times (sorry it's behind a paywall if you read too many articles), Trump is, of course, blaming Obama:
quote:
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam.’ For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
quote:He's from the Connecticut district next to Newtown, where the grade school shooting happened several years ago. He was already working on gun control. Now, he's just had enough.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
for those who do not want to venture behind the paywall, a Democratic congressman refuses to participate in any more Minutes of Silence. He says that God is not going to let Congress off the hook, for failing to regulate assault rifles after all these incidents. I can tell you now that he is a voice crying in the wilderness (the NRA has so many congressmen on a leash they have a dog-walking service) but it does show that they're not all craven.
quote:And this article explains her theory that Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act were defensive actions. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting article in HuffPost's Queer Voices section: "Hillary Clinton Is the Queerest Presidential Candidate Ever". Basically about how pro LGBTQ she is.
quote:DADT represented an improvement (though a somewhat half-assed one) over the prior policy towards homosexuals in the American armed services. DOMA was supposedly an effort to take the metaphorical wind out of the equally metaphorical sails of the effort to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, though in my estimation a premature one. (The first state to allow same-sex marriage was Massachusetts, seven years after DOMA became law.) As a practical matter, DOMA had enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto so it wasn't a choice between DOMA or no DOMA, but whether President Bill Clinton wanted to antagonize Congress for no practical gain. It should be noted that the 2012 Republican party platform (the most recent to date, though that will change next month) still advocated for amending the federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Palimpsest-
I skimmed the article. My understanding at the time was that "Don't ask/don't tell" was a compromise, and the best that could be done at that time. I don't think I felt that way about DOMA. But if, as Hillary said in the article, they were afraid something worse would be passed, it might have been a compromise, too. FWIW.
quote:*I'm pretty sure that Obama is trolling Trump by saying ISIL repeatedly here.
And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL* is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL* unless we call them radical Islamists.
What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?
The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.
<snip>
There has not been a moment in my 7.5 years as president where we have not able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label “radical Islam.” Not once has an adviser of mine said, “Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around,” not once.
quote:Opinions differ on that!
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But ISIL isn't correct either.
quote:Source.
When talking about the group - which has also spawned affiliates elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Asia - UN and US officials generally use the acronym "Isil", the acronym of "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant"
quote:I know! But that was then, and they don't call themselves that any more. Their claim is more grandiose now.
Opinions differ on that!
quote:
Which brings me to the candidate I think deserves the strongest consideration: Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. Perez combines some of the best virtues of the other candidates, and poses none of the downside risks. Like Castro, Perez — the son of Dominican immigrants who grew up in Buffalo — brings a valuable demographic appeal to the ticket. Like Brown, Warren, and Sanders (and unlike Castro) Perez has a strong, progressive, pro-labor track record that should appeal to Sanders voters. And unlike Warren and Brown, his selection would not put a Democratic Senate seat at risk. If Vaughn had included me in his Times poll, I would have named Perez Clinton’s most likely to succeed vice president without hesitation. Let’s just hope he’s interested in the job.
quote:I assume it when she proudly claims his accomplishments as part of her record. Either she gets credit or doesn't. As for how she'd do things, I assume it's with no commitment to keeping her promises. Maybe you'll get what she promise or maybe it will be another compromise that is not anything you wanted.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, the main problem with this kind of analysis is that it rests on the dubious assumption that President Hillary Clinton would govern the same way in today's political context that her husband governed in 1990s. I suppose it's possible, but I'd prefer to see the case made rather than simply assuming it.
quote:Talking of silly labels: I coined SCIS - skiz, so I propose SCISIL - skizzle. So Called.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Opinions differ on that!
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But ISIL isn't correct either.
quote:Source.
When talking about the group - which has also spawned affiliates elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Asia - UN and US officials generally use the acronym "Isil", the acronym of "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant"
Actually, I think the variations reinforce one of Obama's points. Trump's going on about labels is just silly.
quote:We have different concepts of amusing.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The amusing thing about Trump's comments on the Orlando massacre is the he said if they had guns they could fight back. Apparently he thinks more Latino should be armed while he deports them.
quote:Unless you're a good guy with a gun. Then it's okay. Especially in Texas.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And let us not forget that the shooting took place at a bar. I always thought that one of the biggest gun safety no-nos was mixing firearms and alcohol.
quote:For those with short memories, when George W. Bush left office he had a net job approval rating (percent approving minus percent disapproving) of -27%. In 2012 he was still considered toxic enough it was considered best he not attend the Republican National Convention. And now apparently downticket Republican candidates seem to think that having their names tied to his will be a net plus to getting re-elected.
After eight years of largely abstaining from politics, former President George W. Bush is throwing himself into an effort to save his party’s most vulnerable senators, including several whose re-election campaigns have been made more difficult by Donald J. Trump’s presence at the top of the ticket.
In the weeks since Mr. Trump emerged as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mr. Bush has headlined fund-raisers for two Republican senators and has made plans to help three more. Among them are Senators John McCain of Arizona, who was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest targets of derision, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who has struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s inflammatory talk.
quote:He can't be elected president again, but there is a highly unlikely way he could be president again. A president with less than two years to serve in his (or her) term and a vacancy in the vice presidency could appoint Dubya vice president (with the consent of both houses of Congress). If that hypothetical president dies or resigns before the expiration of his or her term, George W. Bush could be the president again.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fortunately, Dubya can't be president again. Whew.
quote:I am SO glad I get to vote against him again! Unless, of course, he loses the Republican primary -- which is looking more and more possible.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
McCain is not sounding so sane himself these days.
quote:It would be a very faint possibility, entangled with lots of wrangling. But yeah, it would make a good movie.
Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment
There is a point of contention regarding the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."
While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear whether a two-term president could later serve as Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.[17] Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election, and thus a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president.[18][19] The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. During Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy, she said that she had considered naming Bill Clinton as her Vice President, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional.[20]
The constitution does not restrict the number of terms a person can serve as Vice President.[21]
quote:Is there a joke that I'm missing here? McCain isn't in the Republican primary this year.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I am SO glad I get to vote against him again! Unless, of course, he loses the Republican primary -- which is looking more and more possible.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
McCain is not sounding so sane himself these days.
quote:Sorry for the confusion. He's running for re-election to the U. S. Senate, but it looks like he has some viable competition in his own party this year as well as from the Democrats. I'm hoping he'll be riding off into the sunset in January.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Is there a joke that I'm missing here? McCain isn't in the Republican primary this year.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I am SO glad I get to vote against him again! Unless, of course, he loses the Republican primary -- which is looking more and more possible.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
McCain is not sounding so sane himself these days.
quote:That's a big "it depends". Bill Clinton would not be eligible to run for vice president since he would be Constitutionally unable to exercise its chief function, namely taking over if the president dies, resigns, or becomes incapacitated. Being president isn't just about exercising the powers of the presidency, it's about exercising the powers of the presidency until the next inauguration date. (Please take note, Senate Judiciary Committee!) As GK noted, the Twenty-Second Amendment allows someone to be president for two full terms plus the remainder of someone else's term provided there's less than two years left in it. Hence my Constitutional sleight-of-hand using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to slip in a vice president when a president has less than two years left in her term, something that was not possible when the Twenty-Second Amendment was ratified and was thus not considered by its authors.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just out of curiosity, should Hillary make Bill her veep, and die in office, would Bill become president? I mean, would he constitutionally be able to, or would the presidency have to pass to the Speaker?
quote:It's not unusual for a president to choose a VP he doesn't really like for politically expedient reasons. Such VPs are usually relegated to attending state funerals.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I remember in West Wing there was some tension between the President and his VP.
quote:Well, we've already had some pretty prominent evangelical leaders endorse Trump, and some pretty prominent evangelical leaders firmly and emphatically explain why it's ridiculous for an evangelical to vote for the man. So I expect the response among my evangelical community to continue to be mixed.
Originally posted by Komensky:
And now the co-pastor, Beni Johnson, of Bonkers Bethel Church in Redding California is supporting Trump! What is likelihood that more evangelicals (although I realise that Johnson will be at the fringe of what many Shippies will consider to be 'evangelical') will do the same?
K.
quote:Actually, it seems a rather recent trend for a nominee to choose a like-minded running mate. Clinton and Gore come to mind. As you say, they often only chose someone who could fill a gap in their polls and who was often a very different personality. Ike and Tricky Dick? FDR and Truman?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It's not unusual for a president to choose a VP he doesn't really like for politically expedient reasons. Such VPs are usually relegated to attending state funerals.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I remember in West Wing there was some tension between the President and his VP.
quote:Just like an opinion on twitter, you can always find some of my fellow evangelical types that will be contrary because that's what they believe.
Originally posted by Komensky:
And now the co-pastor, Beni Johnson, of Bonkers Bethel Church in Redding California is supporting Trump! What is likelihood that more evangelicals (although I realise that Johnson will be at the fringe of what many Shippies will consider to be 'evangelical') will do the same?
K.
quote:A like with like combination: Nixon and Agnew, 2 crooks together.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:Actually, it seems a rather recent trend for a nominee to choose a like-minded running mate. Clinton and Gore come to mind. As you say, they often only chose someone who could fill a gap in their polls and who was often a very different personality. Ike and Tricky Dick? FDR and Truman?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It's not unusual for a president to choose a VP he doesn't really like for politically expedient reasons. Such VPs are usually relegated to attending state funerals.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I remember in West Wing there was some tension between the President and his VP.
quote:Seems to me it would have been better if they didn't resign and then act as a "faithless" delegate and vote for someone else.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, nine of Arizona's fifty-eight delegates to the Republican convention have resigned, two of them stating that they'd rather resign than be forced to vote for Trump.
Finally Arizona has done something right!
quote:Yes, it seems the pastor in question is pastor of a church near where I live called Bethel Church. I imagine some pranksters started calling it "Bonkers Bethel Church" for obvious reasons and the moniker stuck. But it's not the official name of the church. I'd probably like it a lot better if it was.
Originally posted by simontoad:
My computer is telling me that there is a church in California called the Bonkers Bethel Church. I recently removed a Chrome extension that changed various words to do with the Australian election. It changed the name of our Prime Minister to "Richy McRichface" and "election" to "Pie-eating competition", among many others.
...While a google search has come up with Bethel Church, no Bonkers Bethel Church was located. Can people who know therefore confirm to me that there is a church called Bonkers Bethel Church via telephone or letter. I'd quite like such a church to exist, as it probably means that somewhere in the United States is a town called Bonkers.
quote:Gah, what a total idiot. Presumably Trump is now planning to stop British people from visiting the USA?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A British 19-year-old has been arrested for grabbing a police officer's gun, apparently intending to kill Donald Trump with it.
quote:Why did she take it down? It is so often the case that 'leaders' like that only step down once they are exposed. Moreover, it doesn't seem to be that old, it seems to have been posted in April. Bethel's parade of nonsense and bigotry will have to be for another thread.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Komensky
I think the Beni Johnson support story is pretty old news. The criticisms go back over three months and she took down the Facebook entry following criticism. It was a pretty unwise entry.
I can't find any comments from Beni's husband and Bethel lead pastor Bill. I suppose he may think Beni was "bonkers" to do that but if so he's not likely to say so in public.
I've got a lot of misgivings about Bethel and the story, old or not, certainly adds weight to the "bonkers" reputation.
quote:You'd see gun control legislation passed faster than Donald Trump's hair dryer can blow hot air.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it would be a massive irony if a second amendment Republican was assassinated.
quote:By 1972 George Wallace was a political irritant everyone (aside from his hard-core supporters) just wished would go away. It's unsurprising there was no action after the assassination attempt.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Your opti[m]ism is touching, Amanda. They did nothing when George Wallace was shot. I doubt if even the assassination of a siting GOP president would have that effect.
quote:After the JFK assassination the U.S. banned mail-order sales of guns. Of course, it was a different political climate and the fact that Oswald had obtained his rifle via mail order may have helped move things along.
I tried to place this [the Jo Cox assassination] in a comparative context with the United States. In my lifetime, only five sitting members of Congress have been shot or killed while serving. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 and John Stennis in 1973 (a mugging) survived. Those that didn’t include RFK in 1968 (but as I point out in the interview, he was running for president, so it’s a little different), Leo Ryan in 1978 (Jonestown), and Larry McDonald in 1983 (KAL 007).
I have two thoughts on this list. First (again as I point out in the interview) I’m surprised the number is that low given the gun culture in the US. Second, there’s not much commonality tying all five together. The only two that bear any sort of resemblance to what happened here on Thursday are Kennedy and Giffords, and that’s tenuous.
quote:And Donald Trump is . . . . [do I need to finish the sentence?]
Originally posted by Crœsos:
George Wallace was a political irritant everyone (aside from his hard-core supporters) just wished would go away.
quote:. . . a major-party nominee for President. Whatever else he might be a plurality of the Republican primary electorate believed him to be the best choice out of a field of seventeen contenders.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:And Donald Trump is . . . . [do I need to finish the sentence?]
Originally posted by Crœsos:
George Wallace was a political irritant everyone (aside from his hard-core supporters) just wished would go away.
quote:Ronald Reagan wasn't assassinated, but John Hinckley tried to in 1981. I don't remember talk of gun legislation at the time, but it was so long ago I don't remember much of what happened in the aftermath.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:You'd see gun control legislation passed faster than Donald Trump's hair dryer can blow hot air.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it would be a massive irony if a second amendment Republican was assassinated.
quote:It took a while but the Brady Bill was the end result.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Ronald Reagan wasn't assassinated, but John Hinckley tried to in 1981. I don't remember talk of gun legislation at the time, but it was so long ago I don't remember much of what happened in the aftermath.
quote:Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, was shot and injured in the attempt. This led to Brady pushing for what became the
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Ronald Reagan wasn't assassinated, but John Hinckley tried to in 1981. I don't remember talk of gun legislation at the time, but it was so long ago I don't remember much of what happened in the aftermath.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:You'd see gun control legislation passed faster than Donald Trump's hair dryer can blow hot air.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it would be a massive irony if a second amendment Republican was assassinated.
quote:For Brady, yes. For the rest of the GOP, including Reagan himself, apparently not. And if being personally shot at doesn't change your perspective, I don't know what will.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing like being shot by a loonie to make you rethink your devotion to unfettered gun purchases.
quote:There is an old adage to the effect that a true patriot is someone who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the nation is running smoothly. I suppose getting shot should make you rejoice that trigger-happy fuckwits can easily buy guns. If that's what you want.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:For Brady, yes. For the rest of the GOP, including Reagan himself, apparently not. And if being personally shot at doesn't change your perspective, I don't know what will.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing like being shot by a loonie to make you rethink your devotion to unfettered gun purchases.
quote:Actually, it seems the take-away for the GOP is that being shot at confirms the need for more guns to defend yourself against all the guns out there. And when that results in getting shot at, it confirms the need for even more, even bigger guns. And when that results in getting shot...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:There is an old adage to the effect that a true patriot is someone who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the nation is running smoothly. I suppose getting shot should make you rejoice that trigger-happy fuckwits can easily buy guns. If that's what you want.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:For Brady, yes. For the rest of the GOP, including Reagan himself, apparently not. And if being personally shot at doesn't change your perspective, I don't know what will.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing like being shot by a loonie to make you rethink your devotion to unfettered gun purchases.
quote:Watching lots of American primary school kids being mown down like they were in the middle of a warzone? For shame.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:For Brady, yes. For the rest of the GOP, including Reagan himself, apparently not. And if being personally shot at doesn't change your perspective, I don't know what will.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing like being shot by a loonie to make you rethink your devotion to unfettered gun purchases.
quote:Sound like Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, who was once a civil rights lawyer. He did, however, begin changing, before he died.
Originally posted by simontoad:
A senator from Texas said "slippery slope" when he meant something about his cold dead hand. He also mentioned 'due process' which made me think that he probably used to be a human rights lawyer before he was struck on the road to Damascus and became an arsehole instead. Still, I'm sure there's some good in there somewhere, and I'm not bitter.
quote:I wonder if one thing it says is that the Secret Service is much better trained? And its agents can control themselves better in a situation like that? (Though, from various scandals, not so much off duty, some of them.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yet Ronald Reagan was surrounded by men with guns. After shots were fired suddenly there were at least ten Secret Service men with guns who just seconds before had been milling in the crowd or looking nondescript. Yet they were unable to keep Reagan from getting shot.
What is more, a man shot the president, and was apprehended and taken into custody. A white man of course. As opposed to a black child waving a plastic gun who was shot on sight. This says something about our nation but I'm not sure what.
quote:*tangent* I didn't know that, but found an article online about it. Freaky.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sound like Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, who was once a civil rights lawyer. He did, however, begin changing, before he died.
quote:Or, as another tweeter put it, "Literally a framed pic on the wall of the candidate and a porn star, as a major evangelical leader endorses him."
Originally posted by Stetson:
Falwell jr. endorses Trump. Check out the interesting sample of holy scripture, lower right.
quote:Thing is, Playboy is so ubiquitous and so "establishment" in American culture, I remember George Burns appearing in TV specials flanked by Bunnies, and I used to think "Do all the old people watching this know that those girls are going full-frontal in the pages of the magazine?"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Or, as another tweeter put it, "Literally a framed pic on the wall of the candidate and a porn star, as a major evangelical leader endorses him."
Originally posted by Stetson:
Falwell jr. endorses Trump. Check out the interesting sample of holy scripture, lower right.
quote:No, "honored". Fallwell Jr. is an American.
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Honoured" --- really?
quote:Perhaps they'd never looked past the articles?
Originally posted by Stetson:
"Do all the old people watching this know that those girls are going full-frontal in the pages of the magazine?"
quote:Also, what kind of narcissist has his photo taken in front of a bunch of framed magazine covers of himself?
Originally posted by Stetson:
Check out the interesting sample of holy scripture, lower right.
I'm proud of them.quote:Of course they knew. Playboy was the safe porn. Wouldn't want kids to be in it but better then Penthouse.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, Playboy is so ubiquitous and so "establishment" in American culture, I remember George Burns appearing in TV specials flanked by Bunnies, and I used to think "Do all the old people watching this know that those girls are going full-frontal in the pages of the magazine?"
....
quote:But the thing is, George Burns never posed as "the Christian (or Jewish) comic." Indeed, low-level friskiness was even a part of his schtick (I remember a funny send up by Gracie that hinged on his infidelity). Trump's attempts to posit himself as "the Christian candidate" despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary continues to be, at best, laughable. So maybe the comparison with Burns works after all.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, Playboy is so ubiquitous and so "establishment" in American culture, I remember George Burns appearing in TV specials flanked by Bunnies, and I used to think "Do all the old people watching this know that those girls are going full-frontal in the pages of the magazine?"
quote:I was wondering if the comparison is better to the pornographer Heffner. If Trump ever poses, could we expect better/worse than [URL=http://www.lbc.co.uk/naked-donald-trump-painting-to-go-on-show- 128251]this[/URL] - NSFW (not safe for work or anywhere in the universe!)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So maybe the comparison with Burns works after all.
quote:Certainly the effect in "safe" Republican districts will be nil.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Looks like Hillary knew all about it. Husband Bill and President Obama have indicated support. Overall effect on the Presidential election remains to be seen I guess.
quote:Fear won long ago in the US. The current phenomena are just the mop-up action.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wake up America. Fear has won in Britain, do not let it in the US.
quote:Is it the one titled Evangelical Christians are selling out faith for politics? Just a few points:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm having trouble cutting and pasting the link on this machine, but over in today's Washington POST opinion page the unhappy Michael Gerson has another cri de coeur, calling out the evangelical community for its corrupt and mindless support of Donald Trump. A voice, crying in the wilderness -- he went to Trump's love-fest with religious leaders.
quote:There is nothing noteworthy about the movement of some in the Religious Right towards reconciliation with Trump now that he is the presumptive nominee. This movement has been mirrored in most of the constituent parts of the GOP that once opposed Trump—it is not exceptional to the Religious Right (to the extent that the “Religious Right” is even a discernible political movement nowadays), and certainly is not driven by whatever Machiavellian motives some apparently ascribe to the purported leaders thereof.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with Gerson's column isn't his complaint that the American religious right is a venal political movement focused on power to the exclusion of piety, it's his pretense that it was ever anything else. For all these reasons I grant Mr. Gerson the Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award.
quote:Well, now that the evangelical pope, James Dobson, has declared that Trump has accepted Christ, the issue is officially moot. Move along, nothing to see here.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Is it the one titled Evangelical Christians are selling out faith for politics? Just a few points:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm having trouble cutting and pasting the link on this machine, but over in today's Washington POST opinion page the unhappy Michael Gerson has another cri de coeur, calling out the evangelical community for its corrupt and mindless support of Donald Trump. A voice, crying in the wilderness -- he went to Trump's love-fest with religious leaders.
- It takes a lot of gall to write speeches for George W. Bush selling the Iraq War on false pretenses (Gerson is credited with coining the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" line) and then criticize anyone else for "deception, cruelty and appeal[ing] to bigotry".
-- I find it baffling that anyone else is baffled by the appeal of racism to a political movement founded to promote racial segregation.
-- Why would the community that spawned and celebrated Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart have any qualms about Donald Trump's well known philandering?
The problem with Gerson's column isn't his complaint that the American religious right is a venal political movement focused on power to the exclusion of piety, it's his pretense that it was ever anything else. For all these reasons I grant Mr. Gerson the Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award.
quote:then I might, just might, be able to take James Dobson seriously. It still wouldn't make the Donald a good candidate for President but it would be a hopeful sign for his future.
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
quote:As an American who has spent a 30+ year career in commercial real estate finance, hearing apocryphal Donald Trump stories at nearly every industry gathering, always with a consistent portrayal of his essential character, I would say, don't hold your breath. He claims to be a Presbyterian, but the only authentic Presbyterian concept he seems to have fully internalized is total depravity.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, if I hear the Donald say something like this
quote:then I might, just might, be able to take James Dobson seriously. It still wouldn't make the Donald a good candidate for President but it would be a hopeful sign for his future.
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
quote:"Probably"!? Birds of a feather flock together.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, there's a surprise. James Dobson is probably not a wise man. The Donald is probably a mountebank.
quote:I had that exact thought when I saw the headline. Where is the matching headline, with checks being written to soup kitchens and public hospitals and homeless shelters? And the announcement that his accountants and attorneys will be scouring the books so that Trump can return their money x4?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, if I hear the Donald say something like this
quote:then I might, just might, be able to take James Dobson seriously. It still wouldn't make the Donald a good candidate for President but it would be a hopeful sign for his future.
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
quote:It's nothing new, though. They are already pointing at Dobson. Have been for years.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is sad is that some non-Christians will point at Trump, the next time they need to put religion down. Dobson is doing the faith no favors at all.
quote:Not that I want disaster for the UK, but if their economy circles the drain and they have governmental chaos over the next few months, and if this is well covered in US media, Trump's self-identification with the Leavers may help Clinton's chances in November.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wake up America. Fear has won in Britain, do not let it in the US.
quote:If Americans* were capable of that level of awareness, Trump wouldn't have made the debates, much less the nomination.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Not that I want disaster for the UK, but if their economy circles the drain and they have governmental chaos over the next few months, and if this is well covered in US media, Trump's self-identification with the Leavers may help Clinton's chances in November.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wake up America. Fear has won in Britain, do not let it in the US.
quote:Remember that Remain was showing stronger before the actual vote...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
His national approval ratings took a nosedive over the past two days, and a major GOP leader announced he is leaving the party a couple days ago, too.
quote:One wonders if that's what emboldened some people to "protest vote" -- the polls assured them that Remain was going to win, and so they felt it was safe to protest in that way.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Remember that Remain was showing stronger before the actual vote...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
His national approval ratings took a nosedive over the past two days, and a major GOP leader announced he is leaving the party a couple days ago, too.
quote:Not in the same way Trump is polling. Jamelle Bouie of Slate explains:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Remember that Remain was showing stronger before the actual vote...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
His national approval ratings took a nosedive over the past two days, and a major GOP leader announced he is leaving the party a couple days ago, too.
quote:In short, the result of the Brexit vote was within the margin of error for most advance polling. A Trump victory lies outside that margin of error as it stands now. Granted that four and a half months is a long time in electoral politics and that any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency, but if the election were held today Trump would almost certainly lose badly.
What’s striking about the results of the EU referendum is the extent to which they matched the polls. Every survey of Brexit showed a close race between the two sides — a coin toss. The balance of the polls suggested a narrow — but far from dispositive — lead for “Remain.” The final result was in line with the projection: a contest with no clear advantage for either side in which “Leave” won an extremely modest victory. Here in the United States, our polls show a substantial Trump loss in the general election against Hillary Clinton, just as they showed a substantial Trump win in the Republican presidential primaries.
quote:It doesn't necessarily. I think my statement primarily reflects my mood.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't see why one outcome necessarily predicts the other.
quote:I think so. Plus, in many polls, the status quo is under represented compared to actual voting results.
Originally posted by mousethief:
One wonders if that's what emboldened some people to "protest vote" -- the polls assured them that Remain was going to win, and so they felt it was safe to protest in that way.
quote:I agree about the Brexit margins. I thought the early, and incorrect, capitulation of the Brexiteers was premature and stupid when it happened.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In short, the result of the Brexit vote was within the margin of error for most advance polling. A Trump victory lies outside that margin of error as it stands now. Granted that four and a half months is a long time in electoral politics and that any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency, but if the election were held today Trump would almost certainly lose badly.
quote:I hear that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do hope you are correct, but I am out of optimism at the moment.
quote:And now apparently Donald Trump is a prophet who speaks for God:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Until I see that headline, all I see is Dobson giving Trump a free pass for his every immoral action past or future, and for his every hateful word. "Oh, that was before he accepted Christ, and he's a new man now; God has forgiven him, so it's of no concern now." With its corollary, "He's a baby Christian, you can't expect him to know the language yet, or to understand what's expected of him. He'll learn. You have to be patient with him, just as God is patient with you."
It's coming. And the people who listen to Dobson will lap it up as if it's water from the River of Life, instead of poison.
May God have mercy.
quote:
“In a very calm, quiet way, with his arms folded, he said, ‘you religious leaders,’ he called us, ‘have every right to speak up and express yourselves, and you don’t. The First Amendment protects that right and yet you don’t.’”
[Pastor Michael] Anthony said the room knew he was spot-on.
“He’s exhorting us and yet we know he’s right when he said it.”
In that moment, Anthony is convinced God was using Trump to move Christians to act to defend their religious freedom.
“I think God was speaking through him at that moment, to the church, to tell us why are you being silent about the most important thing about your lives?”
quote:With others, I'm unable to share your optimism-- we've seen Trump hit rock-bottom levels of disgusting before only to pick up the shovel and dig down another 6 feet to new lows of filth, and still be embraced by some mysterious yet apparently significant demographic.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, my interpretation of the nosedive is that it was a big mistake for Trump to crow over the referendum the way he did. He combined ignorance with total crassness to make a neat bundle of disgusting. I think he overestimated the tolerance of his demographic.
quote:And God knows, what Jesus wants from us above all is to look out for our own rights and privileges.
Originally quoted by Crœsos:
quote:
In that moment, Anthony is convinced God was using Trump to move Christians to act to defend their religious freedom.
quote:Since Trump entered the Republican primaries back in June 2015 he always polled at the head of the Republican candidate field. What we were treated to was a succession of pundits and experts who told us to ignore the polls because "Trump hit rock-bottom levels of disgusting" and was sure to lose support any day now. This was never followed by any discernible change in polled support among Republicans. It's deceptive to attribute this to "some mysterious yet apparently significant demographic". Trump has had the support of a plurality of Republican primary voters pretty steadily for over a year. There's nothing particularly "mysterious" about this, other than to various pundits who trust their own instincts about voters more than they trust polls of those voters.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:With others, I'm unable to share your optimism -- we've seen Trump hit rock-bottom levels of disgusting before only to pick up the shovel and dig down another 6 feet to new lows of filth, and still be embraced by some mysterious yet apparently significant demographic.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, my interpretation of the nosedive is that it was a big mistake for Trump to crow over the referendum the way he did. He combined ignorance with total crassness to make a neat bundle of disgusting. I think he overestimated the tolerance of his demographic.
quote:Since Trump entered the Republican primaries back in June 2015 he always polled at the head of the Republican candidate field. What we were treated to was a succession of pundits and experts who told us to ignore the polls because "Trump hit rock-bottom levels of disgusting" and was sure to lose support any day now. This was never followed by any discernible change in polled support among Republicans. It's deceptive to attribute this to "some mysterious yet apparently significant demographic". Trump has had the support of a plurality of Republican primary voters pretty steadily for over a year. There's nothing particularly "mysterious" about this, other than to various pundits who trust their own instincts about voters more than they trust polls of those voters. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:With others, I'm unable to share your optimism -- we've seen Trump hit rock-bottom levels of disgusting before only to pick up the shovel and dig down another 6 feet to new lows of filth, and still be embraced by some mysterious yet apparently significant demographic.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Perhaps because you live in a very blue state where it might be uncomfortable to admit. My career in real estate finance in Massachusetts puts me in touch with a lot of conservative Republicans too (although not so many evangelical ones), and like you, I see very few of them who are willing to express open support for Trump. Some of them express strong reservations about him, but aren't quire ready to vote for Clinton instead. But when I visited my father in Florida last week, there were noticeable Trump supporters out in the open.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I work, play, worship, and socialize almost entirely in a conservative evangelical bubble, I have so far been unable to find even a single friend or acquaintance in any of those spheres who will admit to being a Trump supporter.
quote:
These men claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.
quote:Yes, that was one of a couple of possibilities I mentioned upthread when I first mentioned this experience. As I said then, of the 4 or 5 possible explanations I came up with, this one is the most frightening.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:Perhaps because you live in a very blue state where it might be uncomfortable to admit.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I work, play, worship, and socialize almost entirely in a conservative evangelical bubble, I have so far been unable to find even a single friend or acquaintance in any of those spheres who will admit to being a Trump supporter.
quote:UK polling has issues, mostly to do with shy Tories/Brexiters/non-Independence types but also to do with relying upon the past to predict the now.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Remember that Remain was showing stronger before the actual vote...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
His national approval ratings took a nosedive over the past two days, and a major GOP leader announced he is leaving the party a couple days ago, too.
quote:If only.... We already have the precursors, Trump and a competitor who is loathed by many. Not much most of us can do except vote against Trump and hope the angry white working class doesn't screw everything.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
After the discussions I've had elsewhere on this fair vessel in the course of today, I thought I would just enter a plea for the US of A not to enter the clusterfuck 2016 club. Please? It's incredibly hard to get yourself out once you're in, and very painful.
Just say no, kids, just say no.
quote:I think the UK lesson is not to ignore the "angry white working class" left behind, and often without work, by globalisation and technological change. Crude protectionism and isolationism are pipe-dream answers. But some better answers need to be found. Policies, rather than sympathies. What do these policies look like? Work conveys some independence and dignity. There are reasons for the anger.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not much most of us can do except vote against Trump and hope the angry white working class doesn't screw everything.
quote:My, that's a short question requiring a long and nuanced answer that touches on complicated issues of economics and sociology. It would be way beyond my capacity or knowledge to answer fully, but I suspect that there are some key principles that would need to be satisfactorily addressed:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I think the UK lesson is not to ignore the "angry white working class" left behind, and often without work, by globalisation and technological change. Crude protectionism and isolationism are pipe-dream answers. But some better answers need to be found. Policies, rather than sympathies. What do these policies look like? Work conveys some independence and dignity. There are reasons for the anger.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not much most of us can do except vote against Trump and hope the angry white working class doesn't screw everything.
quote:This is a road which further widens the wealth gap and strengthens/establishes hereditary classes.
Second, the public must recognize that advanced education and the high wages it commands in the marketplace are not entitlements, but acccomplishments that need to be achieved through personal determination and focus.
quote:Given that the non-white working class seems to react very differently to the same set of policies, I think it's short-sighted to ignore the racial component involved. If the "white working class" was angry because of economic policy we would expect to see the same anger among their non-white counterparts. We don't.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the UK lesson is not to ignore the "angry white working class" left behind, and often without work, by globalisation and technological change. Crude protectionism and isolationism are pipe-dream answers. But some better answers need to be found. Policies, rather than sympathies. What do these policies look like? Work conveys some independence and dignity. There are reasons for the anger.
quote:Then again, it can't be About Race, because nothing in America is ever About Race.
For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes — which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan — would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.
quote:Precisely why high-quality higher education needs to be universally accessible, rather than available primarily to the privileged few.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:This is a road which further widens the wealth gap and strengthens/establishes hereditary classes.
Second, the public must recognize that advanced education and the high wages it commands in the marketplace are not entitlements, but acccomplishments that need to be achieved through personal determination and focus.
The higher up the mountain one starts, the easier it is to summit.
There is also too skewed a view when determining what jobs are worth. It takes much more time & resource to become a doctor than a sanitation worker, but the latter saves more lives.
quote:A brief analysis of some of the obvious logistical problems of "everybody should go to an elite college" solution:
Originally posted by fausto:
Precisely why high-quality higher education needs to be universally accessible, rather than available primarily to the privileged few.
quote:I'm also highly dubious of a theory that postulates that low-skill jobs, like scrubbing floors, can be sent overseas but jobs requiring a lot of training, like accounting or web design, can never be. It seems like it's analyzing the global labor pool that existed in the mid-twentieth century, not the one that exists today.
quote:Wait, are we talking about selective colleges, or just college? Apparently the former:
Getting a bachelor’s degree is the best way to escape poverty.
quote:Again, nobody ever says “let’s make society more equal by sending more people to selective colleges” because, you know, math: The overwhelming majority of Americans (conservatively, 95%) can’t go to selective colleges, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS FOR A COLLEGE TO BE SELECTIVE.
Talented students should go to the best college they can — and not just for the career advantages later. A student who could get into a top school is nearly twice as likely to graduate there than if she goes to a noncompetitive school. The top colleges are the only ones where students of all income levels graduate at the same rates. The reason is money: Selective colleges are richer. They can afford to provide specialized counseling and lots of financial aid. And running out of money is the most common reason people drop out.
Indeed a large majority of Americans won’t graduate from college, period — one third of adults have college degrees, up from 5% in 1950 — because among other things college functions as a signaling mechanism and a purveyor of positional goods (i.e., degrees) and as college degrees become more common the signal becomes fuzzier and the goods become less valuable (by definition).
quote:Forty years ago it might have been true that most policy makers were more familiar with Keynes and class-warfare suppositions (*) than they were with the Austrian school and Schumpeter. These days it is the other way around. Perhaps there's less Schumpeter around now than in the heyday of the eighties, but there's still a lot of Austrian school. Either way, our current malaise is far more down to the failures of an Austrian and Schumpeterian influenced thinking than it is to any thing Keynesian.
Originally posted by fausto:
Policy makers whose default economic suppositions rest in the static class-warfare and/or Keynesian economic frames need to become equally comfortable with the dynamic "Austrian school" of economic thinking and Joseph Schumpeter's frame of "creative destruction".
quote:--------------------
Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.
quote:Since they're still discussing the "murder" of Vince Foster nearly a quarter of a century later, that seems like a safe bet.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Final my arse. If she gets elected they'll find a way to resurrect it.
quote:Or as labor leader Rose Schneiderman's phrase was quoted in this poem:
I believe human beings, by and large, want to have the ability to feed and clothe themselves, have adequate shelter and bring up a family (if partnered), not work themselves to death,and have some free time to do something they like to do for fun.
quote:
Our lives shall not be sweetened
From birth until life closes
Hearts starve as well as bodies
Give us bread but give us roses
quote:Not convinced.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And God knows, what Jesus wants from us above all is to look out for our own rights and privileges.
Originally quoted by Crœsos:
quote:
In that moment, Anthony is convinced God was using Trump to move Christians to act to defend their religious freedom.
quote:I really am not at all sure what your point is here. What are you not convinced of?
Originally posted by Callan:
God may have spoken through Balaam's Ass, but I like to think he has some standards.
quote:Regardless of the circumstances of Foster's death, Hillary is a lying shit-bag corporate shill war-hawk no more deserving or qualified to be President than Trump, and on many points less so.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Since they're still discussing the "murder" of Vince Foster nearly a quarter of a century later, that seems like a safe bet.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Final my arse. If she gets elected they'll find a way to resurrect it.
quote:
The biggest problem with Trump’s speech, according to trade policy experts, is that he doesn’t actually appear to know what he’s talking about.
quote:-She has never created a job or had to make a payroll
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Many points less worthy than Trump? Give 5.
quote:Balaam's ass probably thought the same about humans.
Originally posted by Callan:
God may have spoken through Balaam's Ass, but I like to think he has some standards.
quote:Ur assumption Trump is different is more flawed then you think.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:-She has never created a job or had to make a payroll
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Many points less worthy than Trump? Give 5.
-She has never built anything or had to make a budget doing so
-She has never dealt with government except when cashing their checks
quote:Where did u read such an assumption in my post?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ur assumption Trump is different is more flawed then you think.
quote:Dude! Chill!
Originally posted by simontoad:
Romanlion keep going. This thread is boringly pro-Hill. Give us some meat to chew though. Considered argument mate, not one-liners that we can knock down with a breath.
EVERYONE: Be nice to the fox for the moment. The chase is afoot! TOOT BARK BARK TOOT
John from Canada, loved your post. Just got a memory with holes and am too lazy to scroll back for your full name now that Romanlion is wagging his little white tail again.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Regardless of the circumstances of Foster's death, Hillary is a lying shit-bag corporate shill war-hawk no more deserving or qualified to be President than Trump, and on many points less so.
quote:If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you're writing, why should anyone else?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Where did u read such an assumption in my post?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ur assumption Trump is different is more flawed then you think.
quote:One of the interesting things about most Clinton conspiracy theories is that they make no sense even on their own terms and are mostly crafted to illustrate that the Clintons (either separately or together) are just evil for the sake of being evil. This particular conspiracy posits that Hillary Clinton told the families of those killed at the Benghazi compound that their loved ones were killed by people who hated America for one reason, when she really secretly knew that the attackers actually hated America for a different reason altogether. Knowing the exact reasons the killers hated America was supposed to be comforting to the families of those killed (for some reason), but Hillary Clinton denied them that comfort. Exactly how Clinton "knew" this when the CIA changed its mind on this question four times in the space of 48 hours is left unspecified. Probably because she was there, scaling the walls and killing those Americans herself, doubtless using the same gun she used to murder Vince Foster.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
-She perpetuated what she knew to be a lie to the families of Americans killed under her watch for the political convenience of a man whom she can't stand because it advanced her own agenda
What are you talking about? Benghazi? Because, um.. yet ANOTHER investigation into that has shown no wrongdoing on her part. and they certainly tried.
quote:Snarky commentary, including a link.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I still can't copy and past the URL, but if you go over to the Washington POST site and look under Opinions, a Jim Ruth has a piece titled I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote. He makes some sort of a case for his opinion, but I do think that this whole PC complaint is trivial and silly.
quote:Oooh, beautiful snark in the comments: "Confederate monuments are the ultimate participation trophy."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Snarky commentary, including a link.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I still can't copy and past the URL, but if you go over to the Washington POST site and look under Opinions, a Jim Ruth has a piece titled I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote. He makes some sort of a case for his opinion, but I do think that this whole PC complaint is trivial and silly.
quote:It is illegal for American political campaigns to either solicit or receive campaign donations from foreign nationals. I'd guess that goes double for foreign nationals who are members of foreign governments.
Since members of the British Parliament have complained about receiving several fundraising emails from Donald Trump, politicians in several other foreign countries have revealed that they've also been flooded with email requests for donations from Trump.
Members of parliament in Australia, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland have all received the emails, according to news reports and tweets from the politicians.
Tim Watts, an Australian member of parliament, told TPM's Josh Marshall on Twitter that he has received several fundraising emails from the Trump campaign, and that he believes all Australian members of parliament have gotten the emails as well.
quote:
Now, you're likely asking: what on Earth is going on here? Obviously, it is strictly against US election law to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals. I suspect knowingly soliciting them is likely also illegal. And when you're soliciting money from foreign parliamentarians it's probably a pretty good bet they're not US citizens. But obviously, as big as a buffoon as Trump is, and as crooked as he is, there's no possible way his campaign is intentionally soliciting small donor contributions from members of foreign parliaments. Somehow this must be incompetence in how they bought their email solicitation lists. But how?
Candidly I didn't know you could easily buy the email list of all members of the Icelandic parliament. But it seems like you can.
Now a few people suggested that maybe someone was just pranking Trump - going to the website and signing up various foreign parliamentarians and dignitaries. But this seems far too systematic for that. It does appear to be every member of each parliament. You'd need to collect each email and then manually add them in on the Trump website, somehow get them to confirm the opt-in confirmation email. It's too complicated. These are lists that were almost certainly added from within the campaign.
The only plausible answer seems to be that the Trump campaign either dealt with a sloppy or disreputable list broker or was so desperate after its horrible May FEC report was released that it went to a broker and just said they wanted every list and they'd sort it all out later. I confess that both scenarios seem a little farfetched. But some version of one of them basically had to happen, unless there's a prankster actually inside the campaign.
quote:Not quite. Permanent Residents (green card holders) may donate to political campaigns, be solicited for such donations, and so on.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It is illegal for American political campaigns to either solicit or receive campaign donations from foreign nationals.
quote:The fact you were answering a question that states:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Where did u read such an assumption in my post?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ur assumption Trump is different is more flawed then you think.
quote:
Many points less worthy than Trump? Give 5.
quote:Given that it happened around 25 years ago, I expect the case is likely to be dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. There will be a few cries of indignation and then it will be forgotten. Law enforcement will probably not bother to investigate.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Do you think the child rape charges against Trump should be ignored? Reported? Discussed? Shouted from the rooftops?
Do you think they will have any effect on anything? Or is the weapons-grade plum immune even from that?
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I doubt it will make any difference (though certainly it should). His supporters don't seem to care about anything.
quote:
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
quote:Do they even exist anymore?
Originally posted by fausto:
Some enterprising investigative journalist might do some deep digging . . . .
quote:If I read the complaint correctly, the rape is alleged to have happened in New York. While the statute of limitations for a civil action brought by the victim may have passed, there is no statute of limitations for criminal rape charges in New York.
Originally posted by fausto:
Given that it happened around 25 years ago, I expect the case is likely to be dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. There will be a few cries of indignation and then it will be forgotten. Law enforcement will probably not bother to investigate.
quote:If there proves to be any credibility to the claims, I suspect the media more aligned and favored by left-wing Americans will probably cover it extensively. Then the right-wing media will tout how it's a witch hunt and the lefties are persecuting poor, misunderstood Trump, etc etc.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Boy do I hope those charges are seriously investigated, but the mainstream media are so carefully not saying a thing despite the sensational nature. I wonder if they're worried of being sued. Sadly, I fear it'll be her word against his, and he's bigger, so I suspect nothing will happen. And if nothing happens, the media don't seem to plan to cover it, so I fear I don't think it will influence anyone.
quote:That chart shows the statute of limitations for criminal cases. The pending case against Trump is a civil case between private parties, though, not a criminal prosecution by law enforcement. That's why the complaint included arguments why the ordinary statute of limitations should be "tolled" (i. e., measured in such a way that it has not yet run out).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A handy chart detailing the statute of limitations for various offenses in the state of New York, and a link to the relevant law.
quote:And, if the media and/or the Democrats give the allegations significant play, you can expect the words "Juanita Broaddrick" to become the veritable slogan of the Trump campaign.
If there proves to be any credibility to the claims, I suspect the media more aligned and favored by left-wing Americans will probably cover it extensively. Then the right-wing media will tout how it's a witch hunt and the lefties are persecuting poor, misunderstood Trump, etc etc.
quote:Oh, there will surely be all sorts of nasty mudslinging before this is over. Nevertheless, if indeed there is any substance to the Jane Doe allegations, dredging up Broaddrick hardly balances the scale. First, she was an adult, not a minor, at the time of the alleged incident. Second, she filed a sworn affidavit in the Paula Jones case stating that she was not raped. Third, at the time of the alleged incident, she was in fact having an illicit extramarital affair with yet another man, whom she later divorced her then-husband to marry. Fourth, the public has already heard everything there is to hear about Bill's philandering, but they re-elected him anyway. Fifth, Hillary is not Bill, and even if all the allegations against both Bill and Donald were true, unlike the other two she never raped anybody.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:And, if the media and/or the Democrats give the allegations significant play, you can expect the words "Juanita Broaddrick" to become the veritable slogan of the Trump campaign.
If there proves to be any credibility to the claims, I suspect the media more aligned and favored by left-wing Americans will probably cover it extensively. Then the right-wing media will tout how it's a witch hunt and the lefties are persecuting poor, misunderstood Trump, etc etc.
Of course, what Broaddrick alleges is unprovable at this point, but then, the allegations against Trump probably are to, or at least won't be proven before November.
quote:Right, and I noted the civil/criminal distinction in my post, which seems to be what prompted Crœsos's post. But part of what I was responding to was the suggestion that no law enforcement investigation would be undertaken because the statute of limitations had run. The point is simply that no statute of limitations would prevent a criminal investigation and indictment, should law enforcement otherwise be inclined to pursue the allegations. (Whether credible evidence exists after all these years is, of course, another matter.)
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:That chart shows the statute of limitations for criminal cases. The pending case against Trump is a civil case between private parties, though, not a criminal prosecution by law enforcement. That's why the complaint included arguments why the ordinary statute of limitations should be "tolled" (i. e., measured in such a way that it has not yet run out).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A handy chart detailing the statute of limitations for various offenses in the state of New York, and a link to the relevant law.
quote:(Italics mine.)
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But part of what I was responding to was the suggestion that no law enforcement investigation would be undertaken because the statute of limitations had run. The point is simply that no statute of limitations would prevent a criminal investigation and indictment, should law enforcement otherwise be inclined to pursue the allegations. (Whether credible evidence exists after all these years is, of course, another matter.)
quote:Right—there is no statute of limitations for a criminal case.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
According to links posted earlier, the limit had been exceeded for a civil case, but not a criminal one.
quote:For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
quote:No surprise that speech went over well. It was full of the self-flattering nationalism that Canadian liberals and soft-leftists eat up like refrigerated pizza. I'm pretty sure it was either written by, or at least had heavy input from, one of Trudeau's speech-writers.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am tell that Barack Obama spoke before the Canadian Parliament the other day. They broke into a chant: "Four more years! Four more years!" There's my choice.
quote:I read somewhere(The Economist, I think) that polls show Johnson actually takes more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. Presumbaly, "pot-and-porn" libertarians(as opposed to paleolibertarians who want to abolish government so that churches can run everything) who have stuck with the Democrats out of support for that party's social liberalism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
quote:Here's a question...
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have mentioned to others that I am in the bizarre position of considering voting for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party candidate.
If there was a combined Green-Libertarian slate, they would almost certainly get my vote!
quote:That's just the problem, isn't it? Part of me has sympathy for the Libertarian views of fiscal rigor and restraining government overreach into individual lives, but I reject the belief that dismantling social/welfare programs will benefit society as a whole. Quite to the contrary, such an approach would likely be destructive of society.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Do you favour maintenance and/or expansion of social-welfare policies? If so, you should probably avoid the Libertarians.
[Snip]
Personally, I've always admired libertarians for their consistency, ie. they don't suddenly switch to supporting government coercion in cases where such coercion would benefit capitalists(eg. the libertarians in my hometown who campaigned against an anti-panhandling bylaw, even though it was supported by local businesses). But I can't get past their advocacy of a wholesale dismantling of the social-safety net.
quote:So you're saying "feel the Bern" is correlated with "feel the Johnson".
Originally posted by Stetson:
I read somewhere(The Economist, I think) that polls show Johnson actually takes more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. Presumbaly, "pot-and-porn" libertarians
quote:For those Republicans that would view themselves primarily as fiscal conservatives Johnson would work. For those who view themselves as social conservatives first and foremost they would have to vote for some paleoconservative group such as the American Independent Party.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
quote:Well, as I said earlier, there are some SoCons who support libertarianism, on the basis that in the absence of a social-safety net, people's behaviour would improve(by SoCon standards) because there would be no government programs to help you deal with whatever problems result from a "godless" lifestyle.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:For those Republicans that would view themselves primarily as fiscal conservatives Johnson would work. For those who view themselves as social conservatives first and foremost they would have to vote for some paleoconservative group such as the American Independent Party.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
quote:So, then, you are voting for Trump.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have mentioned to others that I am in the bizarre position of considering voting for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party candidate.
If there was a combined Green-Libertarian slate, they would almost certainly get my vote!
quote:But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine. To tell me that I cannot vote for the candidate that most closely matches my own views because my candidate will lose misunderstands the point of voting.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, then, you are voting for Trump.
In what is for all intents a two party race, a vote for a nominal candidate is a vote for the party most in opposition to your beliefs.
The history of recent American politics demonstrates that for a third-party candidate to do anything more than remove votes from a viable candidate, they need to establish a presence long before this point in the process.
As has been demonstrated in the UK, protest votes are foolish.
quote:This is madness.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine.
quote:That's quite right Hedgehog, but if there be a close election in your State, and given that you have a first-past-the-post system of voting, do you consider it desirable to vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning when your vote may help ultimately to elect a candidate with whom you can live rather than one you totally oppose? Not being on the ground in the US, but I can well contemplate a state where the combined votes for electors committed to several minority candidates may well tip all the state's College votes to Trump rather than Clinton. It's the one sort of tactical voting which really makes sense.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Frankly (and this is the Libertarian sympathizer part of me coming out) I find the suggestion that an American voter MUST vote either Republican or Democrat and nothing else is repugnant. It is my vote and nobody--certainly no political party--has the right to tell me I cannot use it as I see fit.
quote:Perhaps in an ideal democracy. However, in reality, the point of voting is to ensure that the country will be governed by the person or party likely to do the least damage and (God willing) even likely to govern according to one's own way of thinking.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
To tell me that I cannot vote for the candidate that most closely matches my own views because my candidate will lose misunderstands the point of voting.
quote:I frankly think there's more to it than that. Even with equal media coverage, I don't think a third party candidate really stands a chance as long as the third party in question focuses just on a presidential election every four years.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If the third-party candidates had gotten the same media coverage as the Republican and Democratic candidates, the resulting public awareness just possibly might have made them viable candidates with a chance of winning the election. Unfortunately, the media being what they are, this was highly unlikely to happen and in fact did not.
quote:I think it's daydreaming to think that a minority of voters voting for a third party candidate once every four years is going to make a third party candidate viable. It needs to be done at the grass roots level, as has been said. Protest votes will not create a strong national third party. Jill Stein needs to pay her dues.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you believe that the two mainstream candidates may be bad but not destroy the country, you can vote for a minority candidate with the understanding that at best you'll lose the current election but may allow a new party to grow to a majority and win.
Constantly voting for the least bad choice and starting over every four years isn't going to change anything.
quote:Let's say it's 2004, and you think Ralph Nader would really be a good President. Then you look at how Bush just scraped in in 2000 and you remember just how bad he's been. You don't really like the Democrats but consider that Kerry would be better than another 4 years of Bush. You're in a State where the plurality could go either way between the major parties.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you believe that the two mainstream candidates may be bad but not destroy the country, you can vote for a minority candidate with the understanding that at best you'll lose the current election but may allow a new party to grow to a majority and win.
Constantly voting for the least bad choice and starting over every four years isn't going to change anything.
quote:It doesn't put Trump supporters in a good light. It shows that frustration will cause people to vote against their own interests, that facts and logic have little to do with how too many people vote.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Trump's followers:
"The Working-Class Wounds Hidden Behind Trump Voters’ Racism: If we listen carefully to Trump’s supporters, we can hear their desire for progressive policies." (Yes! magazine)
Makes some interesting points.
quote:Why all the sarcasm and cynicism? We all get a vote. A vote is an individual's personal choice, but it is a choice made within a political context. Why is it mad or foolish to consider the impact and consequences of that choice? <cough> Brexit <cough> Choosing one candidate also means not choosing any of the others and politicians know that and use it. In my riding, both the federal and provincial Liberals tacitly encourage people to vote Green. Why? Because splitting the vote is their only chance against the NDP.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:This is madness.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine.
The only option is to vote for someone who has a chance of winning this cycle, regardless of what a waste of flesh they might be, or how out of phase their positions may be in relation to your own.
Anything else is foolish.
quote:Unless I've badly misunderstood, romanlion is saying exactly that: consider which candidates have a reasonable chance of winning and vote for the one you like most/dislike least. Don't vote for the Moon-on-a-Stick-Party candidate whom you love, but who won't win.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is it mad or foolish to consider the impact and consequences of that choice?
quote:The American constitutional system uses first-past-the-post elections requiring a majority (or at least a plurality) to win. Because of this it is optimized for the existence of exactly two parties, no more, no less. They need not be two parties as currently constituted, but the number is more or less hardwired into the way the U.S. conducts elections and runs its government.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a third-party wishes to truly make a difference, they need widespread, constant and high-profile campaigns all the time. They need to generate support before they run for major office.
quote:The most successful post-Civil War third party was the Progressives, but their successes occurred primarily in parts of the U.S. where one political party had achieved total electoral dominance. In other words, they were most effective when they were effectively a regional second party, rather than a true third party.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It is an interesting chicken-and-egg problem, though. The Green Party has achieved some wins at the local level. But for the party to have credibility at the local level, it also has to have a national presence. By running a candidate for president every four years, they get at least some recognition at the grassroots level that they are a legitimate political party.
quote:Exactly what happened in '00, when the Greens were responsible for ushering in one of the most environmentally disastrous presidencies we've seen...
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the number of people who could have held their noses (or their bile) and voted for Hilary but instead voted their sparkling clean precious consciences for Jill Stein (or whomever) is greater than the number that Trump wins by, it will be very difficult not to hold them responsible for his win. (Assuming we're talking margins in swing states.)
quote:No, the responsibility will be with the millions of people who vote for Trump, not the hundreds of people who vote for Stein. Likewise, if Clinton wins, it will be because of the millions of people who vote for Clinton, not the hundreds of people who vote for whatever the hell the name of the Libertarian candidate is. Let's not take the finger of responsibility off the people who actually voted for the candidate!
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the number of people who could have held their noses (or their bile) and voted for Hilary but instead voted their sparkling clean precious consciences for Jill Stein (or whomever) is greater than the number that Trump wins by, it will be very difficult not to hold them responsible for his win. (Assuming we're talking margins in swing states.)
quote:As politically pure as a bystander's clean hands.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker: people focus on the few who vote for the third party and ignore the massive number who voted for the winner.
quote:The way the US system works, there are precisely two people who have a chance of becoming president when the election rolls around, and they are the Republican and Democratic names on the ballot.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Fair enough. But surely, as a matter of justice, the blame should be kept in proportion? While there is shared responsibility, the lion's share of the blame for a candidate being elected should rest with those who actually vote for the candidate?
quote:No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker. . . .
quote:That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote. The question is not, "What can I do and not feel too bad about myself" but "What can I do to increase the likelihood of the outcome I would prefer, or at least decrease the likelihood of the outcome I don't want."
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Fair enough. But surely, as a matter of justice, the blame should be kept in proportion? While there is shared responsibility, the lion's share of the blame for a candidate being elected should rest with those who actually vote for the candidate? Or am I being unreasonable?
quote:Or indeed very many fewer in Florida in 2000. Even if a small number of those who voted for Nader had turned out and voted for Gore, he would have been over the line, hanging chads or no hanging chads.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker. . . .
quote:This is really a problem with first past the post as an election system.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
quote:Which brings us back to where this discussion started. I suggested that, if I were to vote with integrity, I should vote for the candidate who best reflects my views, regardless of party. The overwhelming response has been that, at least in battleground states where the end result is not a foregone conclusion, the smart move (if neither major party candidate reflects your views) is to vote against the major candidate that you fear the most. And if you don't vote out of fear, then you are part of the problem and are to blame if the worse major candidate wins.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote.
quote:I don't think this needs to be framed as fear-based. Rather, choosing the best viable alternative. Yes, none of the choices are exactly what you would ideally want. Life is like that-- you seldom get everything you want. Part of living in a community-- whether that's a church or a country or a town-- is accepting that, and working realistically with your neighbors to build a consensus that you can all agree on. That almost always means some give-and-take, some compromise. I think that's what's happening here. You can vote for a major party candidate while still acknowledging that they don't represent everything you'd ideally want. That's not fear-based, that's realistic and communal.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:Which brings us back to where this discussion started. I suggested that, if I were to vote with integrity, I should vote for the candidate who best reflects my views, regardless of party. The overwhelming response has been that, at least in battleground states where the end result is not a foregone conclusion, the smart move (if neither major party candidate reflects your views) is to vote against the major candidate that you fear the most. And if you don't vote out of fear, then you are part of the problem and are to blame if the worse major candidate wins.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote.
quote:But the pressure is self-made. In large part because too many people can't be arsed to do anything besides complain and then vote to no effect.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
such a person is really pressured into a fear vote.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
D and R are the same. By voting third party I am actually supporting a true second option, as well as a candidate that most closely reflects my values and issue positions.
How is voting for a party that cannot win and no one beyond then 10 people in the party will remember how many votes they got more than 5 minutes after they lose, a viable option?
quote:It is also successfully not a vote for some asshole I wouldn't piss on if I found them in flames, or a vote against anyone or any party where as a majority most likely will be.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your third-party vote has been successfully cast! It is also being successfully ignored, successfully forgotten and successfully futile. Congratulations!"
quote:To be sure - "voters like that". Always a problem.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It is also successfully not a vote for some asshole I wouldn't piss on if I found them in flames, or a vote against anyone or any party where as a majority most likely will be.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your third-party vote has been successfully cast! It is also being successfully ignored, successfully forgotten and successfully futile. Congratulations!"
Voters like that are the problem. Self righteous idiots completely cemented in their positions (and ignorance) and counted to the tenth of a percent months before election day.
quote:Even when you're voting for the "least bad" option, that still doesn't mean it's a fear-based vote. It still can be a realistic option.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Certainly there are many for whom that is true. Many people will vote for Trump because he is "close enough" to what they want. Likewise, many will vote for Clinton because she is "close enough" to what they want. All those people are comfortably voting "for" a candidate. I agree with you that that is not fear voting. I have no problem with that.
But what I have been discussing is the other set: those who do not particularly want to vote for either major candidate and, in fact, have a third party candidate they are willing to support (somebody who is also "close enough"), and whether they should then support such a third party candidate or, instead, vote for one of the two who are actually going to win. For the reasons outlined, in states that are battlefield states, such a person is really pressured into a fear vote.
quote:I may be wrong, but aren't those the same thing? Also known as "ranked-choice voting", here in California.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or instead of an instant run-off, a preferential voting system, saving a second election. Easy enough to bring in with a quick amendment to the relevant legislation.
quote:We're not talking about an election in which only one person is running, though. We're talking about an election in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are running. In an election in which only one person is running, vote for whomever the fuck you want, as it doesn't matter. In this election it does matter. It matters that we not elect Donald Trump. All the philosophizing in the world won't change that.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are losing a chance to vote for someone who wins in the current election, but that may be meaningless. If only one person is running for office (which happens here a lot with judges) and you despise them, are you losing anything by writing in a protest vote?
quote:Excellent article. Thanks for posting that.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are right. Have a look at a long report from a guy who attended the Trump rally a couple weeks ago in GA.
quote:Although you then get into a situation such as occurred here in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which allegedly had everyone who would have voted Liberal Democrat if they'd had a chance of winning voted for the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats would have won.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Imagine we had instant run-off voting. I'd put Jill Stein for #1, then Hilary Clinton for #2.
But Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president in 2016 as a feral ferret. So my #1 choice will be eliminated, and my #2 choice is what will count.
quote:Apples and oranges. British elections and American elections just don't work the same way or have the same dynamic.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Although you then get into a situation such as occurred here in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which allegedly had everyone who would have voted Liberal Democrat if they'd had a chance of winning voted for the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats would have won.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Imagine we had instant run-off voting. I'd put Jill Stein for #1, then Hilary Clinton for #2.
But Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president in 2016 as a feral ferret. So my #1 choice will be eliminated, and my #2 choice is what will count.
History does not record whether the people who told pollsters this are the same people who told them they weren't voting Conservative last year and were voting Remain this year.
quote:If he keeps up his recent idiocy I could easily switch my vote to Castle. We'll see...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And are you keeping anyone else in the mix besides Johnson?
quote:That would've been a problematic strategy for Suffragettes anyway.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Note also that the Democrats and Republicans weren't always the two major parties. And platforms can be changed over multiple elections. The Suffragettes and Abolitionists knew they would lose if they voted for their candidates.
quote:I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If this were any ordinary party nominee -- Romney, McCain -- I think that a GOP win would not be calamity. This one is a rule-changer, folks. He cannot be President. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote.
quote:Of course you will. And you'll be doing the same time every time your group of friends decides to go out to a movie or your family decides what to have for dinner. Again, that's just what group decision making looks like. The kind of change that really moves the goal-posts is hard-- and is going to take decades of very hard work that has been detailed upthread. But even then there'll be compromises, even among the revolutionaries.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
quote:I know that, although I have strong political feelings, and strong opinions, I have not in the past thought that the "wrong" candidate would be a calamity. It wouldn't be my preference, but sometimes, in a democracy, you have to live with the Pepto-Bismol Pink carpets. It's just the way things work. You do your best to get people to see it your way, and if they don't, you deal with it.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If this were any ordinary party nominee -- Romney, McCain -- I think that a GOP win would not be calamity. This one is a rule-changer, folks. He cannot be President. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote.
quote:She may not have to if Congress goes Democratic also. Let's give the girl a chance.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I don't see Clinton as being a good president or not leaving the Democratic in rubble as Clinton eagerly seeks to please right of center Republicans.
quote:Are there any other kind? I'm not convinced there are many left of center Democrats. With no wish to engage in a Pond war, American politics doesn't truly know where the Center is.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
right of center Republicans.
quote:Well, we do use different measuring systems...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With no wish to engage in a Pond war, American politics doesn't truly know where the Center is.
quote:I thought the Hare Clarke system was how we used to work out the finals games back when we had a final five and twelve teams, and people from Sydney played league or union, but not both.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Ciffdweller puts it well for those of you who have first past the post voting, except for those who like a parquetry floor such as we have. With (in NSW and federally here, other states vary in their upper houses) preferential voting in the lower house and proportional (Hare-Clarke) in the upper house, you can vote first for the one you really want, then subsequently in descending order for those with whom you can live.
Or you can vote to make a statement also. My first federal election was in 1969, those being the days when you had to be 21 to vote. The thick of the Vietnam war, to which I was opposed. There was a group called Liberal Reform, created by a group of business people specifically opposed to continuing Aust involvement. To show opposition, many in my group voted first for the candidate from that party, then second for the Labor Party. It was really the second vote which could have counted - it did not for me as my electorate then and now is one of the very safest conservative-voting seats in the country, always decided on the first preference.
No-one is forcing Hedgehog and others who think the same to vote any particular way. Can an outsider say that it's a great pity that in 2000 Nader took as many votes in Florida as he did - had only a few over half gone to those bound to Gore, the whole election result would have been different.
quote:That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Of course you will. And you'll be doing the same time every time your group of friends decides to go out to a movie or your family decides what to have for dinner. Again, that's just what group decision making looks like. The kind of change that really moves the goal-posts is hard-- and is going to take decades of very hard work that has been detailed upthread. But even then there'll be compromises, even among the revolutionaries.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
quote:This election certainly is special if one of the major candidates threatened to take away your civil rights and/or prosecute you because of your religion or where you came from.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
quote:Sorry I dropped this - what idiocy are you referring to, specifically? Was it that he recently said he stopped using marijuana to be "knife sharp"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:If he keeps up his recent idiocy I could easily switch my vote to Castle. We'll see...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And are you keeping anyone else in the mix besides Johnson?
quote:She may not have to, but as far as anyone can tell beneath all the postures, she wants to. She's a big Netanyahu fan for example.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:She may not have to if Congress goes Democratic also. Let's give the girl a chance.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I don't see Clinton as being a good president or not leaving the Democratic in rubble as Clinton eagerly seeks to please right of center Republicans.
quote:That ought to do it, really.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can peddle her as the less disastrous misfortune but that's about it.
quote:Thanks for this Brenda.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a NY Times link, but on the other hand i's the beginning of the month, eh? In which after considering whether Trump is a Christian the author concludes hei's actually an apostle of Nietzsche.
quote:For all of Clinton's faults, and I'm not a big fan, she models those values so much better than Trump, who is almost the opposite.
The calling of Christians is to be “salt and light” to the world, to model a philosophy that defends human dignity, and to welcome the stranger in our midst. It is to stand for justice, dispense grace and be agents of reconciliation in a broken world. And it is to take seriously the words of the prophet Micah, “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, and to love kindness and mercy, and to humble yourself and walk humbly with your God?”
quote:Hey, nobody's perfect. All candidates have their flaws, and her opponents have been blowing up hers out of all proportion for decades. To borrow a concept from Christian scholarship, it is getting to the point where people are having trouble distinguishing the flesh-and-blood person who is the 'historical Hillary' from the transcendent figure (usually portrayed as a demon, in her case) who is the 'Hillary of faith'.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:That ought to do it, really.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can peddle her as the less disastrous misfortune but that's about it.
quote:Oops, time for editing ran out before I saw this. Should be "...even if that..."
Originally posted by fausto:
But even that were an accurate description of her rather than extreme hyperbole
quote:The case of the Clinton Impeachment is fairly illustrative. Newt Gingrich was ostensibly relieved of his Speakership because it looked bad to have a known serial adulterer prosecuting the President for an adulterous affair. (It seems just as likely that Republicans blamed Newt for their drubbing in the 1998 mid-terms and used his marital infidelity as an excuse.) Then Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston had to give the Speakership a pass because they were also encumbered with past extra-marital affairs. Finally they picked Dennis Hastert as the kind of solid, no surprises guy who would never bring disrepute to the House Republicans. Whatever happened to that guy, I wonder?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm no big fan of either Clinton, but one has to note that at this point the Congressional Republicans have spent many tens of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find something to nail them with, and all they could come up with was that Bill lied about getting a blowjob when they backed him into a corner. I'd say that makes them squeaky clean by Washington standards. How many congressthings could stand up to that level of investigation?
quote:About an adulterous affair. Which they spent millions of dollars to find, because BILL CLINTON MUST GO!
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
quote:And, just to close the circle: he was investigated for an adulterous affair by an adulterous jerk, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile the adulterous jerk kept railing on and on about "family values" and "fiscal responsibility".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:About an adulterous affair. Which they spent millions of dollars to find, because BILL CLINTON MUST GO!
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
quote:I'm a gay man. Elections where one or many major candidates have proposed taking away my civil rights is nothing special or new. It's more of a novelty when they don't.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:This election certainly is special if one of the major candidates threatened to take away your civil rights and/or prosecute you because of your religion or where you came from.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
Banning Muslim immigration and not accepting judges based on their ancestry is not the norm.
quote:Bill cheated on his wife. Hillary used incorrect protocols for sending and receiving e-mails. It's a good thing that with the Middle East in turmoil and NATO reinforcing its positions in Eastern Europe people aren't focusing on trivia.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
It now seems likely that Hillary is guilty of the same offenses.
quote:I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to accomplish. Any plan that relies on unleashing the awesome power of the Vice Presidency seems doomed to failure. And ridicule. Is it just a last desperate grasp at relevancy? Some insanely optimistic notion that Trump's behavior can be radically changed by a running mate foisted on him by his political enemies? A belief that voters repulsed by Trump might be willing to vote for him if someone like Marco Rubio (for example) is also on the ticket? Searching for deniability and a way to say "not our fault!" in anticipation of a massive Trump loss in November? I'm seriously not seeing why this seems like a worthy tactic to pursue.
Anti-Trump delegates are preparing a rules change proposal that would chart a path for delegates to choose their own vice presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention, instead of voting for Donald Trump’s choice.
quote:Perhaps the belief that if he were to win the election he would not last a full term?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to accomplish. Any plan that relies on unleashing the awesome power of the Vice Presidency seems doomed to failure. And ridicule. Is it just a last desperate grasp at relevancy? Some insanely optimistic notion that Trump's behavior can be radically changed by a running mate foisted on him by his political enemies? A belief that voters repulsed by Trump might be willing to vote for him if someone like Marco Rubio (for example) is also on the ticket? Searching for deniability and a way to say "not our fault!" in anticipation of a massive Trump loss in November? I'm seriously not seeing why this seems like a worthy tactic to pursue.
quote:Or the theory that's currently being floated that Trump is heavily invested in the notion of winning, but not particularly fond of the hard work of actually governing, such that some have speculated that if he is elected he will resign prior to inauguration.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Perhaps the belief that if he were to win the election he would not last a full term?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to accomplish. Any plan that relies on unleashing the awesome power of the Vice Presidency seems doomed to failure. And ridicule. Is it just a last desperate grasp at relevancy? Some insanely optimistic notion that Trump's behavior can be radically changed by a running mate foisted on him by his political enemies? A belief that voters repulsed by Trump might be willing to vote for him if someone like Marco Rubio (for example) is also on the ticket? Searching for deniability and a way to say "not our fault!" in anticipation of a massive Trump loss in November? I'm seriously not seeing why this seems like a worthy tactic to pursue.
quote:The Constitution has no provision for such an eventuality. The determining point would actually not be the November 8 election but December 19, when the electoral college casts its ballots. That's when the president is actually elected.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, would the veep be able to step up? This has never happened before. If Trump was duly sworn in and then bailed, yes. His veep could step up. But in the period between the November election date and the January swearing in, if Trump bails out I could easily see a demand for another election.
quote:Yes, that's the theory I'm seeing floated-- that Trump will step down between 12/19 and the inauguration. Or perhaps more likely, immediately after the inauguration, given that the speeches, parades, and partying would be very to Trump's liking-- it's what comes after the inauguration one has trouble envisioning him being up for.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Constitution has no provision for such an eventuality. The determining point would actually not be the November 8 election but December 19, when the electoral college casts its ballots. That's when the president is actually elected.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, would the veep be able to step up? This has never happened before. If Trump was duly sworn in and then bailed, yes. His veep could step up. But in the period between the November election date and the January swearing in, if Trump bails out I could easily see a demand for another election.
and he quits; and the veep quits, I'd really like someone with some sense and sanity (which the GOP upper crust do not have) to take up the presidency.
quote:So, if elected, he would last just a little longer than inauguration and then leave us for a younger, more attractive country? Yes, that does seem to fit his lifestyle.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, that's the theory I'm seeing floated-- that Trump will step down between 12/19 and the inauguration. Or perhaps more likely, immediately after the inauguration, given that the speeches, parades, and partying would be very to Trump's liking-- it's what comes after the inauguration one has trouble envisioning him being up for.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--If Trump's wife would say to him, "Darling, politics is so boring, and I don't do boring; I found the cutest island we could buy; maybe we could make it into our own country; wouldn't that be nice?", and successfully convince him to withdraw from the election, I'd put her in for a Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously.
quote:The speaker is chosen by the House, and thus whichever party holds majority will hold the speakership, particularly in these days of strict party-line division. The odds are slim indeed that the Democrats could take over the House.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--I don't know if the Speaker of the House position is up for grabs this year; but, if it is, I really hope a Democrat gets it. Not only for the usual reasons, but because the Speaker is next in line for the presidency, after the veep. If, God seriously forbid, Trump is elected
quote:It's very unusual to unseat a Speaker of the House unless there's a change of partisan control in the House, the Speaker either retires or loses a re-election bid, or is involved in some scandal crippling his effectiveness.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The speaker is chosen by the House, and thus whichever party holds majority will hold the speakership, particularly in these days of strict party-line division. The odds are slim indeed that the Democrats could take over the House.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--I don't know if the Speaker of the House position is up for grabs this year; but, if it is, I really hope a Democrat gets it. Not only for the usual reasons, but because the Speaker is next in line for the presidency, after the veep. If, God seriously forbid, Trump is elected
quote:So the Republican powers-that-be could be planning an impeachment once they get a preferable VP in place? That would be a circus...
Originally posted by Prester John:
Perhaps the belief that if he were to win the election he would not last a full term?
quote:Not without precedent. It was a GOP controlled Congress that impeached Andrew Johnson.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:So the Republican powers-that-be could be planning an impeachment once they get a preferable VP in place? That would be a circus...
Originally posted by Prester John:
Perhaps the belief that if he were to win the election he would not last a full term?
quote:[tangent] Were they called the GOP back then? [/tangent]
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Not without precedent. It was a GOP controlled Congress that impeached Andrew Johnson.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:So the Republican powers-that-be could be planning an impeachment once they get a preferable VP in place? That would be a circus...
Originally posted by Prester John:
Perhaps the belief that if he were to win the election he would not last a full term?
quote:Nope, twenty years too soon. Jackson's impeachment was in 1868; the G.O.P. nickname for the Republican Party originated in 1888.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
[tangent] Were they called the GOP back then? [/tangent]
quote:Perhaps a slightly more likely scenario would be if Trump's candidacy so weakened GOP party unity that a faction of centrist anti-Trump Republicans formed a coalition with a faction of centrist Democrats to elect a centrist Speaker who didn't need to rely on the support of the far-right Tea Party and religious conservatives in the GOP. If that happened it might actually break the hyper-partisan legislative standstill in the House.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The speaker is chosen by the House, and thus whichever party holds majority will hold the speakership, particularly in these days of strict party-line division. The odds are slim indeed that the Democrats could take over the House.
quote:Unlikely. A Republican party that's willing to primary it's majority leader out of office and allow a primary challenge to its Speaker is one that won't tolerate that sort of thing. Your plan would require a large number of Republican Congressmen (at least two dozen) saying "yes, this is going to be my last term in any elected office ever". More to the point, it requires about two dozen Republican Congressmen to end their political careers in a way that will only achieve the desired goal if two dozen other Congressmen all stand fast. Almost like they're prisoners facing some kind of dilemma.
Originally posted by fausto:
Perhaps a slightly more likely scenario would be if Trump's candidacy so weakened GOP party unity that a faction of centrist anti-Trump Republicans formed a coalition with a faction of centrist Democrats to elect a centrist Speaker who didn't need to rely on the support of the far-right Tea Party and religious conservatives in the GOP. If that happened it might actually break the hyper-partisan legislative standstill in the House.
quote:Yes. I just wasn't sure what turnover there might be in the House this year, or if anyone's even up for (re)-election.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The speaker is chosen by the House, and thus whichever party holds majority will hold the speakership, particularly in these days of strict party-line division. The odds are slim indeed that the Democrats could take over the House.
quote:I didn't say it was likely! I only said it was slightly more likely than the Dems taking over the House. But if it were to happen, the moderate Republicans who would participate would presumably not fear so much a threat from the right in the next primary elections as from the left in the next general. They would have managed to survive a strong Democratic challenger come this November, but only barely.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Unlikely. A Republican party that's willing to primary it's majority leader out of office and allow a primary challenge to its Speaker is one that won't tolerate that sort of thing. Your plan would require a large number of Republican Congressmen (at least two dozen) saying "yes, this is going to be my last term in any elected office ever". More to the point, it requires about two dozen Republican Congressmen to end their political careers in a way that will only achieve the desired goal if two dozen other Congressmen all stand fast. Almost like they're prisoners facing some kind of dilemma.
Originally posted by fausto:
Perhaps a slightly more likely scenario would be if Trump's candidacy so weakened GOP party unity that a faction of centrist anti-Trump Republicans formed a coalition with a faction of centrist Democrats to elect a centrist Speaker who didn't need to rely on the support of the far-right Tea Party and religious conservatives in the GOP. If that happened it might actually break the hyper-partisan legislative standstill in the House.
quote:Frighteningly accurate, indeed!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So...people have decided it's a good idea to paste Trump's head into "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons... (HuffPost) As HuffPost says, the result "is frighteningly accurate"!
quote:Yeah, sorry, wasn't thinking clearly. My mental card about Congressional elections is along the lines of "people coming, going, staying, with elections at various times".
Originally posted by Carex:
All members of the House are, of course, up for election this year (as happens every 2 years.)
quote:That's the Senate, where Senators serve six year terms which are staggered so that only about a third of them are up for re-election in any given year. It's theoretically possible to replace the entire House of Representatives in a single election, but the Senate was designed to have greater continuity.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Yeah, sorry, wasn't thinking clearly. My mental card about Congressional elections is along the lines of "people coming, going, staying, with elections at various times".
Originally posted by Carex:
All members of the House are, of course, up for election this year (as happens every 2 years.)
quote:...and amazingly prophetic.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Frighteningly accurate, indeed!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So...people have decided it's a good idea to paste Trump's head into "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons... (HuffPost) As HuffPost says, the result "is frighteningly accurate"!
quote:Some Bernie supporters are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So it's happened, Bernie endorsed Hillary. Will this unite the democratic party behind her, or what do we think?
I know some Bernie supporters are going to be livid about this.
quote:Nothing to worry about, no one ever cuts off their nose to spite their face.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Some Bernie supporters are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So it's happened, Bernie endorsed Hillary. Will this unite the democratic party behind her, or what do we think?
I know some Bernie supporters are going to be livid about this.
quote:And yet, despite your soothing words, I am not comforted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Nothing to worry about, no one ever cuts off their nose to spite their face.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Some Bernie supporters are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So it's happened, Bernie endorsed Hillary. Will this unite the democratic party behind her, or what do we think?
I know some Bernie supporters are going to be livid about this.
quote:That's been happening for along time. Abe would re-found the Japanese Empire if he could. We forgive him this, for the moment, because China is also in a scarily outward-looking phase. Please, American ships, planes and troops, you are most welcome here. Stay awhile, we have beer.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, it seems Japan is struggling with a right-wing current, like the US and other places. Except the Japanese version involves an imperial cult...and the prime minister and much of his cabinet are in it. The "Daily Beast" article makes comparisons with Trump.
quote:How do you define white in America? In Australia in the post-war era, my English/Irish people would only grudgingly describe northern Europeans as white if you put the question. There were a variety of other names used instead. I think my people would describe people from southern europe in that era as 'not white'. They would be wogs. If you were whitish, could speak English with an Aussie accent and changed your name, you might be able to scrape by as white.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Trump phenomenon as a symptom of white Christian American decline. Lots of graphs and charts of population and proportion. Since there is nothing doctrinally white about Christianity (unlike Mormons, who had to decree that black people were OK within living memory) you can sort of see where the church began to go off the rails in the US.
quote:I've noticed on various forms and surveys the designation "Non-Hispanic white."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Hispanics, Asians, and of course black people are not white.
quote:I've almost thought the opposite - that you are white (or black, etc.) if other people define you as white/black/whatever. Because as far as I can see, that's what counts about the fictional construct called "race": it describes the way that you'll be treated by the society that you exist in.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mostly, at this point, you are white if you define yourself as white.
quote:This only works on paper. In practice, you are only white if you look white.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mostly, at this point, you are white if you define yourself as white. They have these check-off things when you fill out forms, and you check off whatever you feel applies.
quote:Because Hispanic is not a colour. One can be Hispanic and of only sub-Saharan ancestry or only Asian ancestry or only pale European ancestry. What most Americans, and British, think of Hispanic are mestizo.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've noticed on various forms and surveys the designation "Non-Hispanic white."
quote:Mixed, then. I do not wish to offend.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, though, mestizo is a very loaded word.
quote:[Indulgence in tangent]
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This thread has been running for twenty months -- and the political maneuvering for the 2016 election started even earlier. I'm finding myself somewhat envious of the U.K. In three weeks they've had a P.M. unexpectedly resign and a new one in place. Neither system is perfect, but right now the efficiency of the British system seems quite admirable.
(Not trying to start a debate here -- or a Pond war -- on the relative merits of the two governments. Just sighing to myself and wishing this were all over -- without the fear of what might happen here.)
quote:Right, because the US Census and other government agencies make a distinction between what they classify as race (white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, multi-racial) and what they classify as ethnicity, with Hispanic being the only ethnicity they currently track. So one can identify as white, black, etc., and also identify as Hispanic.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I've noticed on various forms and surveys the designation "Non-Hispanic white."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Hispanics, Asians, and of course black people are not white.
quote:This is consistent with the one-drop rule used for most of American history.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An interesting case is Barack Obama, the son of an African (not African-American) man (famously Kenyan), and a white woman. All white people agree he is black, which sort of mystifies me because he must be 50-50.
quote:Americans don't care. Any black is the same.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An interesting case is Barack Obama, the son of an African (not African-American) man (famously Kenyan), and a white woman.
quote:Nope. Take a look at this link. Twins, but the girl on the left is white anywhere she goes. If her parentage is revealed, there are some who will treat her different, but despite having the same parents, here experience will not be the same as her sister's. Especially if they moved to America.
All white people agree he is black, which sort of mystifies me because he must be 50-50. (But what do I know, I only know how Mendelian inheritance works. Perhaps it would've made a difference if his pushy white mom were alive to stand behind him in every photo.)
quote:There is also the problem of the lighter the skin, the better the treatment. From black people as well as white. This is changing, but the legacy is still there.
Most black people do, too -- but not quite all. Because his black fraction is not African-American, it is argued he does not tap into the full experience of the black person in America. I think this argument has mostly died on the vine nearly 8 years into the man's presidency.
quote:Fwiw, in my experience "person of color" ( but not "colored person") is the term most frequently used in my part of US
Originally posted by Gwai:
Most Americans consider anyone who looks substantially different from the average caucasian person to be a person of color--though the average American wouldn't use that term
quote:Ditto.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Fwiw, in my experience "person of color" ( but not "colored person") is the term most frequently used in my part of US
Originally posted by Gwai:
Most Americans consider anyone who looks substantially different from the average caucasian person to be a person of color--though the average American wouldn't use that term
quote:"Person of color" is usually used here to refer to "non-whites" as a group; "black" or "African American" would be used more specifically to refer only to that particular group.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
To be honest I also hear "black" as the usual term, and "person of color" only in more formal usage.
quote:That's what I meant to say.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:"Person of color" is usually used here to refer to "non-whites" as a group; "black" or "African American" would be used more specifically to refer only to that particular group.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
To be honest I also hear "black" as the usual term, and "person of color" only in more formal usage.
quote:Sure - and maybe that's why I only ever hear it from "racial issues professionals". IME, in normal conversation most people don't need a phrase to mean "not white" - if they're talking about some race-related experience that someone they know has had, it'll be "he's a black guy" or "my friend K - she's Latina too" or whatever specific racial group is relevant to the story.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
"Person of color" is usually used here to refer to "non-whites" as a group;
quote:As mentioned upthread, like most things, it can have both good & bad consequences. Certainly being constantly asked to identify yourself in a particular "group" contributes to "us"/"them" thinking, and the tendency Twilight described of thinking people as the label first rather than as a person first and foremost.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The relationship between the absence of such data and discrimination is unclear, though - although not having any figures probably doesn't help.
quote:For those keeping track at home Ames, Iowa is apparently not too far, but going that little bit extra to Cleveland, Ohio would be to onerous a journey.
Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin isn't included in the official list of speakers for the Republican National Convention next week, and Donald Trump suggested in an interview that her absence is because she lives too far from the venue.
"She was asked," Trump told the Washington Examiner in a phone interview on Thursday. "It's a little bit difficult because of where she is. We love Sarah. Little bit difficult because of, you know, it's a long ways away."
quote:Wow - I had to check to see if it was a satire piece from something like the Onion.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
It sounds likely, but one never knows with Trump.
Pence does not sound like someone I want second-in-line (or anywhere in line for that matter).
quote:
“There are boy colors and there are girl colors,” Pence said, “Once we started letting boys wear girl colors, what’s next? I don’t want to think about it.”
The governor’s spokesman was asked who would decide what is or is not a “gay” color.
“The governor knows a ‘gay color’ when he sees it,” Strait said.
quote:It was from the Huffington Post satire page.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:Wow - I had to check to see if it was a satire piece from something like the Onion.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
It sounds likely, but one never knows with Trump.
Pence does not sound like someone I want second-in-line (or anywhere in line for that matter).
quote:
“There are boy colors and there are girl colors,” Pence said, “Once we started letting boys wear girl colors, what’s next? I don’t want to think about it.”
The governor’s spokesman was asked who would decide what is or is not a “gay” color.
“The governor knows a ‘gay color’ when he sees it,” Strait said.
quote:Well, it isn't proper blue or green. It is inbetween
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Teal?
Teal???
quote:Some Republican voters won't care, and a lot of people of various political persuasions won't notice because so little of the conventions is shown on network TV anymore.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No former Republican president or presidential nominee will be speaking at the Republican National Convention. Nor will any former Republican vice president or vice presidential nominee, with the exception of Paul Ryan who is technically running the Convention and so can't get out of having to say a few words.
quote:IME, they don't always clearly label individual articles at HuffPost. And if you're following a link, you may not notice that it's in the entertainment section. When you go to The Onion and you know that it's a satire/humor site, you expect that. But satire is only a small part of HuffPost, so ISTM it's understandable for it not to be automatically on your mental satire monitor. I got fooled once or twice, too.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Thanks - it's good for me to know that I have to check even if it's a Huffington link.
quote:IIRC, when I was a kid, both conventions were often on TV most of the day. They'd return to regular programming mid-afternoon, I think--probably so folks could watch their soaps. Then coverage would start up again after the evening news. Fun to watch--especially when the result wasn't a foregone conclusion.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Some Republican voters won't care, and a lot of people of various political persuasions won't notice because so little of the conventions is shown on network TV anymore.
quote:That is absolutely amazing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in today's installment of Unconvincing Explanations:
quote:For those keeping track at home Ames, Iowa is apparently not too far, but going that little bit extra to Cleveland, Ohio would be to onerous a journey.
Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin isn't included in the official list of speakers for the Republican National Convention next week, and Donald Trump suggested in an interview that her absence is because she lives too far from the venue.
"She was asked," Trump told the Washington Examiner in a phone interview on Thursday. "It's a little bit difficult because of where she is. We love Sarah. Little bit difficult because of, you know, it's a long ways away."
No former Republican president or presidential nominee will be speaking at the Republican National Convention. Nor will any former Republican vice president or vice presidential nominee, with the exception of Paul Ryan who is technically running the Convention and so can't get out of having to say a few words.
quote:Or maybe he just wants to make sure he gets more media coverage rather than getting "crowded out" by coverage of the recent attack in Nice.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Now Trump has apparently tweeted that he still hasn't made the final call and that there are still two or three people in consideration. He also announced that he will not be announcing today, apparently telling Twitter followers before anyone in the campaign.
He could just be screwing with the media after a leak stole his big moment. He could be playing the old reality host game where they will announce who is safe ... right after this commercial! Or maybe he actually has no clue what
he's doing.
quote:The sticking point is that noon today (July 15) is the deadline for Pence to decide he's not running for re-election. Indiana law won't let him appear on the ballot as a candidate for both governor and vice president, so he has to pick. As of yesterday evening Pence still had not done that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Having recently not gotten a job offer after being repeatedly welcomed to the organization myself, I'm inclined to tell the Governor to go back to Indi, get back to work, and not hold his breath for an offer.
quote:You'd get the birthers going again -- I don't think Jesus has a U.S. birth certificate. In fact, he's a (gasp!) Middle Easterner!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Further down in that link another pastor claims that Trump would be a better president than Jesus. This of course is inarguable (could Jesus read English? You need to be able to read from the teleprompter to be in politics) but is fantabulously dumb...
quote:And he's not white. And he's a Jew!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:You'd get the birthers going again -- I don't think Jesus has a U.S. birth certificate. In fact, he's a (gasp!) Middle Easterner!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Further down in that link another pastor claims that Trump would be a better president than Jesus. This of course is inarguable (could Jesus read English? You need to be able to read from the teleprompter to be in politics) but is fantabulously dumb...
quote:A single man at His age? He must be one of "those" people.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:And he's not white. And he's a Jew!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:You'd get the birthers going again -- I don't think Jesus has a U.S. birth certificate. In fact, he's a (gasp!) Middle Easterner!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Further down in that link another pastor claims that Trump would be a better president than Jesus. This of course is inarguable (could Jesus read English? You need to be able to read from the teleprompter to be in politics) but is fantabulously dumb...
quote:Many of us here in Indiana are glad to see him not running for Governor again (we can recycle all of our "Pence Must Go" signs). Around here, he was just a tool for the so-called "religious liberty" die-hards. Sorry the nation has to listen to him until November and hoping he is not VP.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the New York Times* he has now officially announced Pence.
*Sorry about the paywall, I'm sure other news sites will have it as well.
quote:Here's a blogger who characterizes Pence as "Sarah Palin without the charisma."
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:Many of us here in Indiana are glad to see him not running for Governor again (we can recycle all of our "Pence Must Go" signs). Around here, he was just a tool for the so-called "religious liberty" die-hards. Sorry the nation has to listen to him until November and hoping he is not VP.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the New York Times* he has now officially announced Pence.
*Sorry about the paywall, I'm sure other news sites will have it as well.
sabine
quote:He almost did, at least according to anonymous "sources".
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, I do hope that he pulls out of the governor race and only then has the rug jerked out from under him by Trump. It would be just like the Donald, to suddenly name Chris Christie.
quote:Yes, and there's Paul Ryan, whom they still have around their necks. Clearly not a perfect system.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
No rule without an exception: Delaware remains quite fond of Joe Biden.
quote:I've seen an animated GIF version with, um, rhythmic action going on. I was unable to find a linkable version, which is probably as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those with a more adolescent sense of humor, fun is being had with the new Trump-Pence logo [sort of NSFW].
quote:Here ya go!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I've seen an animated GIF version with, um, rhythmic action going on. I was unable to find a linkable version, which is probably as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those with a more adolescent sense of humor, fun is being had with the new Trump-Pence logo [sort of NSFW].
quote:Oh no. The one I saw, that T was pounding that P so hard it juddered and repeatedly knocked the bottom red stripe out of place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Here ya go!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I've seen an animated GIF version with, um, rhythmic action going on. I was unable to find a linkable version, which is probably as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those with a more adolescent sense of humor, fun is being had with the new Trump-Pence logo [sort of NSFW].
Stephen did suggest it might be used for a drinking game. Personally, I'm probably going to stock up on bits of dark chocolate.
quote:Seriously, that is scary. What sort of a man is he to talk in such inflammatory terms, to make such vile comparisons? He really is a poisonous piece of shit.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also: something something don't want to litter up the Turkish coup thread with - yesterday on the radio they were giving Obama's reaction to the attempted coup, then Clinton's, and finally Trump's. Obama and Clinton sensibly condemned it. Trump said the Turks were taking their country back, like the Americans will in November.
Up to that point I'd been thinking how grateful I am to live in a country with a couple hundred years' history of peaceful governmental transitions.
quote:My understanding is that it was a tweet from a spoof Twitter account. I can't find any evidence of it apart from that. None of which invalidates your final sentence, of course.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Seriously, that is scary. What sort of a man is he to talk in such inflammatory terms, to make such vile comparisons? He really is a poisonous piece of shit.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also: something something don't want to litter up the Turkish coup thread with - yesterday on the radio they were giving Obama's reaction to the attempted coup, then Clinton's, and finally Trump's. Obama and Clinton sensibly condemned it. Trump said the Turks were taking their country back, like the Americans will in November.
Up to that point I'd been thinking how grateful I am to live in a country with a couple hundred years' history of peaceful governmental transitions.
quote:Is bankruptcy illegal?
Originally posted by Huia:
Thanks for that Brenda - I knew he had a bankruptcy or two in his past, but six and several near misses
quote:So it would be better if he just printed his own money, year after year spending more regardless of his circumstance, and leave the balance for his grandchildren to pay either directly or through the dramatic devaluation of the currency they operate in?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bankruptcy isn't illegal, but it is clearly a problem when Trump is touting his marvelous business skills and how he's sooo rich.
quote:He essentially did just that. He built the impression of value for his enterprises and chased in before they crashed. Even shuffling his personal debt to the corporations. He had to be bailed out by daddy even then.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So it would be better if he just printed his own money, year after year spending more regardless of his circumstance, and leave the balance for his grandchildren to pay either directly or through the dramatic devaluation of the currency they operate in?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bankruptcy isn't illegal, but it is clearly a problem when Trump is touting his marvelous business skills and how he's sooo rich.
quote:So he's perfectly qualified for the job then?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:He essentially did just that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So it would be better if he just printed his own money, year after year spending more regardless of his circumstance, and leave the balance for his grandchildren to pay either directly or through the dramatic devaluation of the currency they operate in?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bankruptcy isn't illegal, but it is clearly a problem when Trump is touting his marvelous business skills and how he's sooo rich.
quote:Trump has never file for bankruptcy, just fyi.
Originally posted by Huia:
I know the laws covering bankruptcy here are different from those in the US, but I have never heard of anyone declaring bankruptcy 6 times...
quote:Right. They did it for the little guy. Or perhaps, just perhaps, they did it for their own advantage. No, couldn't be that, could it?
Originally posted by romanlion:
It would have actually been cheaper for those businesses to just fold rather than go through chapter 11, but bankruptcy kept a lot of people working.
quote:Yeah, that is what I said.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So he's perfectly qualified for the job then?
quote:Well he should fit right in with what you consider sound policy...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, that is what I said.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So he's perfectly qualified for the job then?
quote:If your could do the work and show me where I said what I thought was sound policy?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Well he should fit right in with what you consider sound policy...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, that is what I said.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So he's perfectly qualified for the job then?
The financial bits should be old hat for him.
Spend it till you're out, then print it...
quote:That much is true. It was not Trump personally who declared bankruptcy. It was Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts (2004), and then its successor Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009) that declared bankruptcy.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump has never file for bankruptcy, just fyi.
quote:Trump has already indicated he plans to take the U.S. through "bankruptcy", despite the fact that his plan would be both blatantly unconstitutional and almost certain to raise the cost of U.S. borrowing. The U.S. can essentially borrow money for free at this point. It also has a lot of infrastructure that needs repair and employment that is still kind of "soft" in the wake of the 2008 financial crash. That seems like exactly the time to run up a lot more debt, which can be paid back later by a country with a larger GDP.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:That much is true. It was not Trump personally who declared bankruptcy. It was Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts (2004), and then its successor Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009) that declared bankruptcy.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump has never file for bankruptcy, just fyi.
I'd just as soon not take my chances with Trump USA.
quote:Link
Originally posted by HCH:
A news story today in Huffington Post was taken from the New Yorker: "Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All". Tony Schwartz is the ghostwriter who actually wrote "The Art of the Deal", and he has some things to say about Trump.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My apologies if this has already been discussed. I've been too busy to follow this thread recently and don't want to search through 76 pages.
Do any shipmates know anything about these allegations about Mr Trump which seems here to have slipped in under the radar?
Even though they are only allegations, if there's anything behind them, I would have thought they ought to be regarded as very serious.
quote:They were discussed on page 71, starting about halfway down.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Enoch--
The allegations were discussed--within the last few pages, I think, if you want to check that out.
quote:
Yahoo News has enlisted participants at the Republican National Convention representing different viewpoints and roles to file daily diary entries on their experiences in Cleveland. They will be your eyes and ears at one of the most unconventional political gatherings in generations, offering a front-row seat on the convention floor, behind-the-scenes access to key political meetings and a vivid picture of what conventions are really like, both inside and outside the arena. We’re excited to bring you these first entries. Check back in the following days for more.
quote:When they run for President of the United States, yes that will happen.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is bankruptcy illegal?
Originally posted by Huia:
Thanks for that Brenda - I knew he had a bankruptcy or two in his past, but six and several near misses
Is everyone who files for bankruptcy worthy of the scorn you heap on Trump?
...
quote:One the bright side, "Jason Miller" seems to be an actual person who really exists. Note that in best political weaselspeak, the statement doesn't actually address the issue of plagiarism except obliquely with a reference to "fragments that reflected her own thinking".
"In writing her beautiful speech, Melania's team of writers took notes on her life’s inspirations, and in some instances included fragments that reflected her own thinking. Melania’s immigrant experience and love for America shone through in her speech, which made it such a success.”
-Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
quote:For comparison.
He will never, ever give up. And, most importantly, he will never, ever let you down.
quote:Which is why plagiarizing a speech on the importance of hard work is so ironic.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
There is part of me that wonders if there are only so many ways to say "America is the land of freedom and opportunity, where people who work hard can get ahead!"
quote:Or, as this Washingtonian headline puts it, The Likelihood That Melania Trump Accidentally Copied Michelle Obama Is “Less Than 1 in a Trillion”.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Plagiarizing that many lines, verbatim, isn't just rehashing platitudes we've all heard before.
quote:Of course it would be more accurate to say that Melania Trump's speechwriters plagiarized from Michelle Obama's speechwriters, but as I always say "brevity is the soul of headlines".
According to Turnitin, a plagiarism-checking website that examines 200,000 papers day, the “likelihood that a 16-word match is ‘just a coincidence’ is less than 1 in a trillion.” Melania Trump’s longest match? 23 words.
quote:Of course, MLK himself was not guilty of plagiarism when he said, "I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight". He was quite deliberately referencing the Bible and knew that many in his audience would recognise the quotation.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It makes me anxious to hear Donald Trump's acceptance speech: "And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream....I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their whatever, but by the content of their bank accounts . . ."
quote:Is this a case of "You know you have made God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do?"
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OK, here's a horror. Nutbar pastor gives the invocation for the RNC .
quote:Prosperity Gospel - Go figure.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He can't be in a mainline denomination.
quote:Has anyone run the odds of the Rickroll being unintentional?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Or, as this Washingtonian headline puts it, The Likelihood That Melania Trump Accidentally Copied Michelle Obama Is “Less Than 1 in a Trillion”.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Plagiarizing that many lines, verbatim, isn't just rehashing platitudes we've all heard before.
quote:Of course it would be more accurate to say that Melania Trump's speechwriters plagiarized from Michelle Obama's speechwriters, but as I always say "brevity is the soul of headlines".
According to Turnitin, a plagiarism-checking website that examines 200,000 papers day, the “likelihood that a 16-word match is ‘just a coincidence’ is less than 1 in a trillion.” Melania Trump’s longest match? 23 words.
And it looks like someone's been having fun with Photoshop.
quote:That was almost enough for me to declare myself an atheist
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OK, here's a horror. Nutbar pastor gives the invocation for the RNC .
quote:Didn't he let her two predecessors down?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
He will never, ever give up. And, most importantly, he will never, ever let you down.
quote:I'm disappointed. He was supposed to be giving Benediction and there wasn't a frilly cotta or a monstrance in sight.
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:That was almost enough for me to declare myself an atheist
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OK, here's a horror. Nutbar pastor gives the invocation for the RNC .
Huia
quote:I think Bibles should have this guy's picture next to the commandment that says "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OK, here's a horror. Nutbar pastor gives the invocation for the RNC .
quote:Since Goody Rodham was placed in the water and thence did float & was observed conversing with a tall man in the woods, is she not GUILTY?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary likened last night at the RNC to The Wizard of Oz.
Which is a profoundly stupid comparison considering her obvious role and fate in that parallel.
quote:I am afraid that this just comes down to the fact that the finance, insurance, and energy industries tends to own the naming rights to a lot of American stadiums- they are the ones with the money and city connections to get the contract. The Democrats will be meeting at the Wells Fargo center this year, last time they were supposed to have their acceptance speech at Bank of America Field, and the time prior to that, they had the big speech at Invesco Field.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Come on people. This is too good. We are talking the finance industry, where everyone has a hand in everyone's pocket. Surely there is a skeleton there that can be dangled and jiggled on a slow news day.
quote:As if the lies told by Darth Darth Bush and Emperor Chaney that have caused the death of many more Americans were not worse?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Holy Mother of God. An elected official and Trump advisor has suggested Hilary Clinton should be shot.
Rhetoric runs high during a campaign, but this is several shades beyond the pale.
quote:What they should do is rationally, but sarcastically, address Trumps lack of credibility as a presidential candidate. Rationally, and with visual aids, show that America is safer than the GOP fearmongers state. And read Bernie's playbook out loud. Warren and Sanders should speak longer and more often than Clinton and Clinton should be brief and positive.
Originally posted by HCH:
My hope is that when the Democrats have their convention, they will make speeches primarily about issues and not about Mr. Trump. I think they should take the high road.
If a Trump adviser is advocating that Hillary Clinton should be killed, will he be investigated by the Secret Service?
Is anyone going to question Ben Carson's theological credentials?
quote:I very much agree with your first paragraph, and the answer to your question is yes - the end of that article said the Secret Service would investigate.
Originally posted by HCH:
My hope is that when the Democrats have their convention, they will make speeches primarily about issues and not about Mr. Trump. I think they should take the high road.
If a Trump adviser is advocating that Hillary Clinton should be killed, will he be investigated by the Secret Service?
quote:She'll click her heels three times and go home? That doesn't sound too bad. (Unless you're taking a shot at Kansas, you sly dog.)
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary likened last night at the RNC to The Wizard of Oz.
Which is a profoundly stupid comparison considering her obvious role and fate in that parallel.
quote:First off, this is from some anonymous "Kasich adviser", so take it with the appropriate dose of salt. Still, it would explain the somewhat obsessive sniping at Kasich we've seen from both the Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself.
One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?
When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.
Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
“Making America great again” was the casual reply.
quote:Tosh. The vice president never runs anything. Don't look behind the curtain...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The other thing it indicates is that we should all be paying a lot closer attention to Mike Pence.
quote:Ironic that he comes from Derry.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Holy Mother of God. An elected official and Trump advisor has suggested Hilary Clinton should be shot.
Rhetoric runs high during a campaign, but this is several shades beyond the pale.
quote:I assume they get what they pay for.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Are there no average, plain, chunky or plump Trump ladies?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, there are not. The Donald only gets the best silicone.
quote:That's been tried.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I hope some marquee Christian (the Pope? no, has to be an American) will step up and point out that a) these awful people do not speak for all Christians and b) their statements are a million miles from the spirit of Christ. If this doesn't happen, people are going to assume that we agree. And we can all watch the membership rolls tank.
quote:Goes well with this image of Laura Ingraham captured by Bloomberg photographer Daniel Acker. Sort of sums everything up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And now Melania is excusing Trumpites for viciously harrassing a Jewish reporter with antisemitic threats and insults.
quote:I was just saying that to a co-worker. The news that one of the first pieces of legislation Trump wants is to be able to fire all Obama appointees (including, presumably, any judges of Mexican descent) and make it easier to fire other civil service employees looks seriously like a governmental purge--something the USA has generally avoided as far as I can recall.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And Trump saying he'd purge the bureaucracy and install all people loyal to himself.
quote:There is some history of this in the U.S., mostly related to the 19th century spoils system. The ability to provide government jobs to supporters and cronies led to massive amounts of corruption and, eventually, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. Trump seems to be promising/threatening to undo almost a century and a half of progressively stricter anti-corruption laws.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:I was just saying that to a co-worker. The news that one of the first pieces of legislation Trump wants is to be able to fire all Obama appointees (including, presumably, any judges of Mexican descent) and make it easier to fire other civil service employees looks seriously like a governmental purge -- something the USA has generally avoided as far as I can recall.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And Trump saying he'd purge the bureaucracy and install all people loyal to himself.
quote:It gives circuses a bad name.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's a three-ring circus in Cleveland.
quote:Cruz is just a Blue Democrat who doesn't respect Donald's Mandate. It's amazing how interchangeable these threads are.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Whatever else you can say about Cruz, he does have cojones. This is the best commentary on that I've found today.
quote:Fortunately, the Constitution will make it impossible for him to fire judicial appointees.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
The news that one of the first pieces of legislation Trump wants is to be able to fire all Obama appointees (including, presumably, any judges of Mexican descent) . . . .
quote:My hunch is that the Republicans (like Paul Ryan) who are reluctantly backing Trump are doing so with the expectation that a Republican Congress will be a check on his crazier ideas by not enacting them into law. Meanwhile, they'll have a Republican in the White House making appointments, etc. But who knows.
Do Republicans really want to institutionalize such a system, knowing that at some point a Democrat will be elected President and could do the same to all Republican appointees? I want to believe that it is just More Hot Air designed to rile up the Trump base (who love the idea of "throw the bums out" regardless of consequences) but with no real intent to ever carry it through. But, then, I fear a lot of totalitarian dictatorships started because people thought that the dictator didn't really mean everything he said. As Og said a few posts back, it is fun to giggle over all this crap, but there is a terrifying serious side to all of this that Americans need to focus on.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Cruz is just a Blue Democrat . . . .
Do you mean a blue dog Democrat?
quote:Well, if they're thinking along the lines of my hunch, that would be the fatal flaw in their plan, I fear.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They can't control Trump now, a private person. How will they control him if he's President? They are deluding themselves.
quote:I think it's a comparison to the matching British opposite/equiv.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Cruz is just a Blue Democrat . . . .
quote:Hardly. It was a savvy political move. There's nothing to be gained by joining the reluctant train of double talking trumpeters and everything to gain from separating from the herd for 2020 after trump crashes one way or another. The fact that Cruz policies are not that different from trumps matters not
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Whatever else you can say about Cruz, he does have cojones. This is the best commentary on that I've found today.
quote:I hope you're not speaking from personal knowledge.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
He's got the Presidential Seal embroidered on his underpants.
quote:Since, presumably, he does not deliberately present himself as a liar, you owe it to him to assume that he means what he says, and to evaluate him on that basis.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... I want to believe that it is just More Hot Air designed to rile up the Trump base (who love the idea of "throw the bums out" regardless of consequences) but with no real intent to ever carry it through. But, then, I fear a lot of totalitarian dictatorships started because people thought that the dictator didn't really mean everything he said. ...
quote:That is what is so difficult, and so frightening. If you point out to a Trump supporter that their candidate has just advocated the deporting of all Muslims, he will say, "Oh, but Donald is just saying that. He doesn't mean it." Well, if you cannot know that he means what he says, then what does he mean? He is a blank screen, upon which people project their mutually incompatible nuttinesses.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Since, presumably, he does not deliberately present himself as a liar, you owe it to him to assume that he means what he says, and to evaluate him on that basis.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... I want to believe that it is just More Hot Air designed to rile up the Trump base (who love the idea of "throw the bums out" regardless of consequences) but with no real intent to ever carry it through. But, then, I fear a lot of totalitarian dictatorships started because people thought that the dictator didn't really mean everything he said. ...
quote:In my experience, most liars do not deliberately present themselves as liars--that would rather defeat the purpose of telling the lie.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since, presumably, he does not deliberately present himself as a liar, you owe it to him to assume that he means what he says, and to evaluate him on that basis.
quote:We all know that and agree on it.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... he is not a fit person for the office of President of the United States (or the leader of any country, for that matter).
quote:My perspective is slightly different. If I insist that Trump is telling the truth to a Trump supporter who believes he is "just saying that" I won't get anywhere in the debate. My view will be ignored because "I don't get it--he doesn't mean it."
Originally posted by Enoch:
The point I'm making is that you should take the line that he does mean what he says, and press others both to do the same and evaluate him on that basis, in season and out of season and whether they are willing to listen or not.
That approach has the additional benefit of sharpening the debate, making the issues even more obvious.
quote:This kind has always been with us. I remember reading shit like this in the 80s, and it wasn't new then. And we already know the KKK and the white supremacists support Trump. So, no real revelation here.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, I knew this would happen, I just knew it. Pay no attention to those tedious genealogies in Matthew. Jesus was not a Jew. Because he had to be white, the chosen race.
quote:That speech is far too articulate, far to reasoned and contains too few references to Trump. Even if that is the speech written for him, it will not be what he spews.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Breaking news: Headline on HuffPost is that a Trump worker leaked a draft of Trump's acceptance speech (for the nomination tonight) "directly to Hillary"! The supposed text is here.
I'm wading through it. IMHO, some parts of it might be ok, if said by someone remotely trustworthy. But in the context of Trump...
quote:And therein lies the problem. Trump says things that are highly attractive to blue collar Americans who have lost their jobs in the last 20 years. He's not just a buffoon who is saying vile racist things. He says things that many people find to be reasonable. Trade deals are unpopular with many folks. Defense treaties are also unpopular with many folks. I was hearing the same people on the radio today who probably gave Obama a hard time about letting the Russians grab Odessa saying that, yes, the Balkan states should fend for themselves, treaties, obligations, and international reputations be damned. His promise is that we can walk away from both, and you will be better off. A lot of people agree with that. Our brains are wired to look out for our own interests, and that's what he's saying he's going to do.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm wading through it. IMHO, some parts of it might be ok...
quote:Not correcting you; but ISTM he often yells. I've sometimes wondered if he has a hearing problem. He almost looks like he's trying to hear *himself*.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, he's shouting it like he's deliberately imitating -- well, that guy. Fuck me.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:It was not the decibel level, it was the red face, the swinging hands, and the angry tone in his voice that made it more than just strong rhetoric for me. Like I said, it was frighteningly familiar to me. Frightening, period.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fair enough. I've found that not everyone perceives him as yelling.
quote:If honesty were a requirement for politics, very few people currently in it would be allowed to remain.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For Republicans to complain about the effect of globalization is a bit hypocritical. I believe the Democrats did call for policies designed to transition workers into the new economy and policies strengthening the social safety net that would assist people in the transition period. Republicans I believe opposed these policies as big government.
quote:I seriously doubt that the Rolling Stones gave permission for that.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The closing music, after the speech, was "You Can't Always Get What You Want"!
quote:I'd forgotten this incident:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The closing music, after the speech, was "You Can't Always Get What You Want"!
quote:
Keith Richards Once Threatened to Knife-Fight Donald Trump.
quote:(Borowitz is a humorist, but often humor is where the truth comes out. Think of Shakespeare's "fools.")
Donald J. Trump was jubilant Thursday night after accomplishing his goal of delivering a speech that no one will ever want to plagiarize, Trump aides confirmed.
quote:Often veep pick is to shore up support in a demographic the presidential candidate is weak in. Which is why so many veeps were southerners for many years. Since Hills has something like 85% of the Latino/a vote, she doesn't really need to have a Latino/a running mate.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Seeing reports that Clinton may name a running mate this afternoon, to stomp on any momentum Trump may have gained in the convention.
Tim Kane of Virginia is apparently emerging as the odds-on favorite.
I am a little surprised, as I have long anticipated a Latino or Latina on at least one of the tickets. No doubt there are qualified Latino / Latina candidates out there. But nobody pays me to vet and pick running mates, and they probably have good reasons for their pick.
quote:I get that. I just think it would be a good thing for our country to have something other than four white people on the top of the ticket (which is not to imply that you disagree). Granted, Kane is still just a rumor, so it could still happen.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Often veep pick is to shore up support in a demographic the presidential candidate is weak in. Which is why so many veeps were southerners for many years. Since Hills has something like 85% of the Latino/a vote, she doesn't really need to have a Latino/a running mate.
quote:Funny thing is, Pipes is associated with the pro-Likudnik, pro-imperial neo-conservative movement, that movement itself being one of the things that self-proclaimed "Eisenhower Republicans" often claim has driven them from the party.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It is tough to read between the lines, but I get the idea this guy doesn't like Trump.
quote:Not that anyone won't make an issue out of it, but from what I can tell, it is widely understood and accepted that this makes him more attractive than Cory Booker (NJ) and Sherrod Brown (OH), whose successors would have been picked by Republicans.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The interesting thing about a Kaine vice presidency is that it would remove him from the Senate. Kaine isn't up for re-election this year, so running for vice president would be a risk-free move for him. His replacement (if elected vice president) would be picked by Virginia governor and longtime Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe. I can see a very elaborate conspiracy theory being spun around that particular fact.
quote:NOTE: Urban Dictionary is often NSFW for work, word-wise. This page isn't, at least the words in plain English. BUT there is a disturbing, psychedelic GIF of Trump, further down the page.
trumpster fire: What happens when rabid racist rant fuels shitstorm of word salad
That speech smells like Trumpster Fire!
by Gilbeygirl June 08, 2016
quote:Of course one of them is the first woman to head a major party ticket. And we had 8 years of the Kenyan.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I just think it would be a good thing for our country to have something other than four white people on the top of the ticket . . .
quote:Who said that young black men need to be "brought to heel".
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:Of course one of them is the first woman to head a major party ticket.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I just think it would be a good thing for our country to have something other than four white people on the top of the ticket . . .
quote:I never found that a particularly convincing dystopia. Mostly because it posits that theocrats have taken over the USA by imposing a military dictatosrship at the federal level. Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
In late October or early November I am going to review a book, over in the blog I post on. It will be a review of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. If you have read it, you will know why I plan to review it then, and what I'm going to say.
quote:One year ago, I would have agreed with you. After last week, no.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Brenda wrote:
quote:I never found that a particularly convincing dystopia. Mostly because it posits that theocrats have taken over the USA by imposing a military dictatosrship at the federal level. Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
In late October or early November I am going to review a book, over in the blog I post on. It will be a review of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. If you have read it, you will know why I plan to review it then, and what I'm going to say.
quote:Though there are definitely right-wingers who feel that way, the Republican party has not been about giving up centralised control completely. The patriot act, the calls for Muslims to be monitored/banned, abortion, marriage "protection", etc. have all centered on centralised control.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
quote:Indeed they've been working hard in the past year to pass laws prohibiting local governments from making laws more liberal than the state or federal governments.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Though there are definitely right-wingers who feel that way, the Republican party has not been about giving up centralised control completely. The patriot act, the calls for Muslims to be monitored/banned, abortion, marriage "protection", etc. have all centered on centralised control.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
quote:True, but I think most right-wingers acknowldege, from the outset, national-security and immigration as within the proper realm of the federal government. I was thinking more about so-called "moral issues", which are the focus of A Handmaid's Tale, and which in the US are usually regulated at the state or local level, hence the desire of right-wingers to limit federal intervention.
The patriot act, the calls for Muslims to be monitored/banned, abortion, marriage "protection", etc. have all centered on centralised control.
quote:What cases do you have in mind?
Indeed they've been working hard in the past year to pass laws prohibiting local governments from making laws more liberal than the state or federal governments.
quote:Here are some examples from Arizona. I live in one of the more liberal cities, and we are often thwarted in our efforts.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mousethief wrote:
quote:What cases do you have in mind?
Indeed they've been working hard in the past year to pass laws prohibiting local governments from making laws more liberal than the state or federal governments.
quote:Interesting read. Thanks.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Here are some examples from Arizona. I live in one of the more liberal cities, and we are often thwarted in our efforts.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mousethief wrote:
quote:What cases do you have in mind?
Indeed they've been working hard in the past year to pass laws prohibiting local governments from making laws more liberal than the state or federal governments.
quote:Nope. They're just venue shopping, looking for the largest level of government that will support their position. All the rhetoric about "smaller government" is just a cover to disguise opportunism as principle.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I never found that a particularly convincing dystopia. Mostly because it posits that theocrats have taken over the USA by imposing a military dictatosrship at the federal level. Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
quote:Depends on how it's overturned, doesn't it? The current Republican platform (and the previous one, and the one before that, and . . . ) endorse a "human life amendment". If Roe were overturned by such an amendment abortion would automatically be first degree murder in all fifty states.
Originally posted by Stetson:
If, for example, Roe Vs. Wade were overturned, the likely result wouldn't be the banning of abortion by the federal government, but rather individual states being allowed to ban abortion free of SCOTUS intervention.
quote:But if you had to bet your life savings on Roe getting overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion being handed back to the states, OR a Human Life Amendment passing through congress and abortion being first-degree murder coast-to-coast, what would you bet?
Depends on how it's overturned, doesn't it? The current Republican platform (and the previous one, and the one before that, and . . . ) endorse a "human life amendment". If Roe were overturned by such an amendment abortion would automatically be first degree murder in all fifty states.
quote:I've responded to this at the parallel Presidential Election thread for forbidden topics.
Originally posted by Stetson:
But if you had to bet your life savings on Roe getting overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion being handed back to the states, OR a Human Life Amendment passing through congress and abortion being first-degree murder coast-to-coast, what would you bet?
quote:
Luciano Pavarotti's widow has told Donald Trump to stop playing the tenor's most famous aria at campaign events, saying the billionaire's values are "incompatible" with the world's most recognized opera singer.
quote:Uhh...Yeah?
Originally posted by Josephine:
Having a president in hock to another country's leaders seems like a bad idea, you know?
quote:This isn't a huge surprise. The Democrats have been masters of negative campaigning, both against each other in the primaries, and against Republicans in the elections, going back at least to LBJ and Daisy(for our purposes, I'm not counting the racialism of the pre-60s southern Democrats, which would take us back even further.)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Uhh...Yeah?
Originally posted by Josephine:
Having a president in hock to another country's leaders seems like a bad idea, you know?
No comments on the DNC's new Southern Strategy?
Not surprising. Nonetheless the convention has been immediately improved by the removal of the committee chairwoman from the proceedings.
I'm sure Sander's supporters will all suck it up and get in line like good little boys and girls.
quote:False equivalency.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Wasserman Shultz is back in the rotation for the convention, but will resign as party chair at the end of the week.
I think Cruz's boos will have some competition this week.
This election season just continues to bring it...
quote:Wow. You got me all wrong, man...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:False equivalency.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Wasserman Shultz is back in the rotation for the convention, but will resign as party chair at the end of the week.
I think Cruz's boos will have some competition this week.
This election season just continues to bring it...
Trump doesn't disavow Duke, and ya'll are still talking about freaking emails (leaked by the Russians who just happen to have a few former operatives among Trump's camp but hey...)
quote:And after getting soundly booed before she could even get there, she is now out again.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Wasserman Shultz is back in the rotation for the convention...
quote:Well, "honorary chair" of a GOTV committee is sort of a "gig", although most would describe it as "a face-saving sop tossed to a long-term party hack".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I doubt very much that she has any future with Hillary.
quote:Sanders is blond?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Interesting Stetson. Has anyone pointed out or polled about these candidates both being blond? And obviously neither is real.
quote:Following today’s resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her role as Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I doubt very much that she has any future with Hillary.
quote:Heard a clip today, on NPR, of Hillary talking about this. She said her hair's real, the color isn't.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Interesting Stetson. Has anyone pointed out or polled about these candidates both being blond? And obviously neither is real.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Yes, I understand her speech this week at the DNC was much better than her speech last week at the RNC.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Michelle Obama just made the greatest speech at the DNC. The crowd went wild after she said that she lives in a house built by slaves and she can look out the window and see her daughters playing in the yard with their dog.
quote:The band and comments are traditional with American late-night talk shows. Track down an episode of NBC's "Tonight Show", from the years when Johnny Carson hosted. Doc Severinsen led the band, and interacted with Johnny.
Originally posted by simontoad:
They are both brilliant, although the Late Show format is horrible. Why the hell do they have a bloody band, and why must the dude playing the piano make little comments all the time. And as for the quality of the guests - woeful.
quote:Yup. The (mostly) young white men who love Bernie are so angry at Clinton, DWS, and the rest of the party machinery that they can hardly think straight.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it's going to take more than that to mollify some of Bernie's supporters at the convention. It looks as though some of them reckon that Trump in the White House would aid their cause in 2020.
quote:The first sentence is an example of how you might connect with Sanders supporters.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Because I think there are enough of them, and they're passionate enough, that they can make a difference in November. And they're young and foolish enough that it's easy for them to believe that voting for Trump now is a viable long-term strategy for a better future.
quote:In fairness, petty vandalism of campaign advertising(usually signs) is carried out by miscreants across the political spectrum, all over the democratic world. Guaranteed Hillary supporters have done roughly the same thing to Bernie propaganda.
I do not deny that some Sanders supporters need to be cool. I saw that someone had scrawled "Bernie!" on a Hilary sticker on a car on my way to work yesterday. Not cool.
quote:Bernie's promise was a different kind of politics. He presented as an honest man of principles. The recent revelations of dirty tricks by DWS and the DCC cabal don't sit well with that at all, and frankly act to confirm and re-emphasize the accusations of cronyism against the Clintons.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Yup. The (mostly) young white men who love Bernie are so angry at Clinton, DWS, and the rest of the party machinery that they can hardly think straight.
quote:Good reference. Though I think the desperate slogan "Vote for the crook; it's important" was actually from the Louisiana gubernatorial race involving Edwin Edwards and(current Trump booster) David Duke.
I am reminded of the French elections 15 or so years ago when the left urged people to vote for the crook (Chirac) rather than the fascist (Le Pen).
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Was Chirac ever proven to be a literal crook? I know Edwards did at least one actual jail stint.
quote:I also thought Corey Booker was doing a fine job bringing the preaching, towards the end of his speech.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Elizabeth Warren wants to drop all this Washington jazz, she'd make a damn good minister.
Judging from her e-mail, via Hillary's mailing list, she's probably going to focus on international policy.quote:
Donald Trump simply has no credibility or standing to represent American interests abroad. His small-minded, unstable temperament, his shocking incoherence regarding the norms and details of foreign policy, and his dangerous ideology are all completely disqualifying.
Trump barely understood the Brexit decision, which sent ripples of economic anxiety and nationalist sentiment across Europe. He believes more, not fewer, nations should acquire nuclear weapons. He praises authoritarians like Vladimir Putin. He thinks people like President Obama and Hillary are to blame for the rise of ISIS and the collapse of Libya. He considers NATO -- a bedrock alliance dating back to 1949 -- a security agreement we could casually withdraw from or renegotiate unilaterally. Just this weekend, he talked about leaving the World Trade Organization as well.
quote:I think it comes with a tin of Turkish Delight as well...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
All of them, if you accept Trump as your personal and national savior.
quote:Like Edmund, in Narnia, accepting the White Queen's Turkish Delight?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think it comes with a tin of Turkish Delight as well...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
All of them, if you accept Trump as your personal and national savior.
quote:That's what I was going for...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Like Edmund, in Narnia, accepting the White Queen's Turkish Delight?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think it comes with a tin of Turkish Delight as well...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
All of them, if you accept Trump as your personal and national savior.
quote:Dear United States of America:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BTW, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is speaking tonight.
quote:
Donald Trump simply has no credibility or standing to represent American interests abroad. His small-minded, unstable temperament, his shocking incoherence regarding the norms and details of foreign policy, and his dangerous ideology are all completely disqualifying.
Trump barely understood the Brexit decision, which sent ripples of economic anxiety and nationalist sentiment across Europe. He believes more, not fewer, nations should acquire nuclear weapons. He praises authoritarians like Vladimir Putin. He thinks people like President Obama and Hillary are to blame for the rise of ISIS and the collapse of Libya. He considers NATO -- a bedrock alliance dating back to 1949 -- a security agreement we could casually withdraw from or renegotiate unilaterally. Just this weekend, he talked about leaving the World Trade Organization as well.
quote:Helen Clark, Prime Minister of NZ from 1999-2008 was once asked by a small by if men could be Prime Minister too.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yup! And that, now, she's fighting for Hillary, so her girls will know that a woman can be president.
quote:Been a while, but I remember the change in government happened after some nuclear catastrophe, and that various states did indeed break off into seperate entities, as you describe. The handmaid didn't live in the USA, she was a resident of a state or a confederation of states that embraced theocracy and called itself the Republic of somethingorother incredibly jingoistic, or whatever. There were references to skirmishes at former state borders.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Brenda wrote:
quote:I never found that a particularly convincing dystopia. Mostly because it posits that theocrats have taken over the USA by imposing a military dictatosrship at the federal level. Whereas, by contrast, American right-wingers have always been about radically decentralizing power, thus allowing local(and presumbaly more conservative) governments to fill the void left by the abdication of the federal government.
In late October or early November I am going to review a book, over in the blog I post on. It will be a review of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. If you have read it, you will know why I plan to review it then, and what I'm going to say.
If, for example, Roe Vs. Wade were overturned, the likely result wouldn't be the banning of abortion by the federal government, but rather individual states being allowed to ban abortion free of SCOTUS intervention. I think the closest there has recently been to "moral" legislation passed by Washington was the DOMA, which wasn't on the books for long, and which was in fact opposed by some conservatives(albeit not in Congress) for the reasons outlined here.
A more plausible US dystopia would have seen the federal government abolish itself, and conservative states all descending into petty theocracies, unencumbered by the Bill Of Rights. But I think Atwood was probably unduly influenced by the Canadian and British political traditions, where people are more accustomed to laws being made by the national government.
quote:Maybe, though given Donald Trump's unwillingness to pay workers I wouldn't be surprised to hear Melania going on about waking up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. Might be received somewhat differently, though.
Originally posted by Huia:
I heard part of Michelle Obama's speech and thought, "At least the Republicans won't be plagiarising this one."
quote:Who never got a damn thing done in 25 years in the Senate. Who was only taken seriously as a candidate because he decided to run as a Democrat. Who couldn't even say how he would accomplish one of his big talking points, breaking up big banks.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Bernie's promise was a different kind of politics. He presented as an honest man of principles.
quote:Which is really between her, him and God. It sickens me that Donald Trump (of all people) would continue to raise it. It's time we stopped.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
it might just make up for a lot of what he put her through.
quote:Unless he decides to sue after he loses, which seems to be his usual modus operandi. Anything to keep his name in the news.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Donald's specialty is sickening. One of the reasons I yearn for November is that there will be a day, at last, when I no longer hear his name.
quote:Ah, okay. Couple of things...
Been a while, but I remember the change in government happened after some nuclear catastrophe, and that various states did indeed break off into seperate entities, as you describe. The handmaid didn't live in the USA, she was a resident of a state or a confederation of states that embraced theocracy and called itself the Republic of somethingorother incredibly jingoistic, or whatever. There were references to skirmishes at former state borders.
quote:I seem to remember Gilead being at war with more than one neighbour. Quickly skimming the 'lecture' at the end it talks about 'Gileadic civil wars'. Maine is explicitly within Gilead.
Originally posted by Stetson:
According to the plot summary at the novel's wiki page, it would seem that Gilead was in fact the whole of the USA.
quote:This is now the lead headline on the BBC news website.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It appears Trump has just publicaly encouraged Russia to hack email servers, is this legal ... .?
quote:What I read was that he said Russia should "find the missing e-mails", which doesn't like a direct incitement to hacking. But I'm not sure what he means by "missing" or "find". If he means they've already been hacked, but haven't been seen yet, I guess he's not calling for a hack.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It appears Trump has just publicaly encouraged Russia to hack email servers, is this legal ... .?
quote:With his usual lack of attention to detail Trump is conflating the actual hacking of the DNC's e-mail with the various nothingburger 'scandals' around Clinton's State Department e-mails. (As far as anyone knows, Clinton's controversial server was never hacked.)
Why do I have to (ph) get involved with Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president. And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next.
quote:Mr. Trump has rather famously claimed he has no time for political correctness and has publicly called all Mexicans rapists and all Muslims terrorists. Now he has the audacity to clutch his pearls and call for the fainting couch because someone was "trying to pin labels on people" in a private e-mail.
Let me tell you, it's not even about Russia or China or whoever it is that's doing the hacking. It was about the things that were said in those e-mails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people -- what was said was a disgrace, and it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it. She knew everything.
quote:
Why do I have to (ph) get involved with Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president. And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next.
quote:Can anyone translate all that into comprehensible English please, or is there something wrong with my brain this evening?
Let me tell you, it's not even about Russia or China or whoever it is that's doing the hacking. It was about the things that were said in those e-mails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people -- what was said was a disgrace, and it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it. She knew everything.
quote:The world may be about to find out.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is Donald Trump always that incoherent?
quote:I'll bet $100 on it NOT happening.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Any bets on whether GOP will use it to tip him off the ticket leaving Pence as the presidential nominee ?
quote:Actually, as troubling as the Russian hacking suggestion was, I found this part of his comments perhaps more disturbing for someone who wants to be president:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's not the worst thing he's said, nor the most stupid. It's up there of course. How people can get sucked in, idolise, intend to vote for this lunatic is beyond me. He is just crazy.
quote:(Emphasis mine)
I have nothing to do with Putin. . . . I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me.
quote:It's possible. They look like getting four more years out of the Clintons. But I suspect Michelle Obama will say no.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And Obama gave a *great* speech--possibly the last major speech of his presidency.
Some of the crowd want him for 4 more years. Impossible, of course. And I suspect he needs a break. But I wouldn't mind 4 more Obama years.
quote:A friend of mine was kind enough to read the Old Testament Lesson at my licensing. I told her that under no circumstances should she emulate a member of a previous congregation who stood up at Advent Carols and solemnly intoned "A reading from the Prophecy of Malarkey".
I stayed up late to watch the speeches and was not disappointed. Barack Obama gave a real master class in how to deliver a truly memorable speech on a very important occasion. Tim Kaine spoke very well and very confidently. Joe Biden delivered a characteristic barnstormer in his own inimitable way. "Malarkey" is a good word!
quote:Of course Donald Trump can't imagine a marriage that was about anything but sex.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Which is really between her, him and God. It sickens me that Donald Trump (of all people) would continue to raise it. It's time we stopped.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
it might just make up for a lot of what he put her through.
quote:Ummm, that was from last December. (But it's very funny.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Meanwhile, Kasich is running out his campaign war chest with a fake website and well-crafted video slamming Trump's bromance with Putin.
Paid for with dollars, not rubles.
quote:Then it's prescient and pretty impressive thereat. Wow. They saw it coming 7 months ago.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Ummm, that was from last December. (But it's very funny.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Meanwhile, Kasich is running out his campaign war chest with a fake website and well-crafted video slamming Trump's bromance with Putin.
Paid for with dollars, not rubles.
quote:That would be hysterically funny if it weren't so scary!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Back in 2000, Christopher Buckley wrote a satirical inaugural address for Trump (PDF)--never believing that it might happen.
quote:Yup, politics is theater, even the ads for 700 actors to fill the empty seats at DNC and cheer on cue.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Washington Post theater critic has an interesting discussion of the DNC as theater. Just hope HRC can pull off the climax of the show.
quote:I see your "smiled on by fate" and raise you one "deal me in!"
Originally posted by romanlion:
"That's the responsibility that comes with being smiled on by fate..."
Chelsea Clinton
The DNC has been embarrassing.
quote:And with the health care benefits provided under his Senate insurance policy, he can certainly afford effective blood pressure medication.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie looks like his head might explode. He's the reddest thing in the whole place!
quote:Pretty much. And as Tim Kaine pointed out, any time Trump says "Believe me . . ." you know not to believe him.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is Donald Trump always that incoherent?
quote:Source?
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... the ads for 700 actors to fill the empty seats at DNC and cheer on cue.
quote:From what I have seen, the DNC has been a fairly typical political convention. What is embarrassing is the RNC and the fact that anyone outside a mental facility considers Trump a real candidate. His campaign, and the RNC, look like an Onion video run by their interns.
Originally posted by romanlion:
"That's the responsibility that comes with being smiled on by fate..."
Chelsea Clinton
The DNC has been embarrassing.
quote:I suspect that this is largely because of the added scrutiny and coverage of both conventions this year, and the knowledge that the world is watching.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The DNC has been embarrassing.
quote:I suppose you've got two options if you are a reasonably rational Republican.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is embarrassing is the RNC and the fact that anyone outside a mental facility considers Trump a real candidate. His campaign, and the RNC, look like an Onion video run by their interns.
quote:The problem is this puts Trump into a category in which he doesn't belong.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On a scale of 1-10 for suitability, if Richard Nixon was a 5, then the Donald comes in at about minus 50.
quote:If you put that in with a selection of real DT speeches and asked people to guess which was the fake, apart from it's being hopefully premature, would anyone be able to tell?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Back in 2000, Christopher Buckley wrote a satirical inaugural address for Trump (PDF)--never believing that it might happen.
quote:Oh I agree, which is why I prefaced my spoof scale with this.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The problem is this puts Trump into a category in which he doesn't belong.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On a scale of 1-10 for suitability, if Richard Nixon was a 5, then the Donald comes in at about minus 50.
Trump is a suitable for the presidency as lead is as a flotation device.
quote:Minus 50 is basically nowhere on any scale of suitability.
But if you genuinely believe that Trump is a suitable candidate, then I think you are either brainwashed or insane.
quote:Not just name calling, but name calling that's part of a sentence! How rude!
"You know, I don’t think name calling has any place in public life, and I thought that was unfortunate that the President of the United States would use a term like that, let alone laced into a sentence like that," he said. "But I just don’t see it. I see, I think what I have found in Donald Trump is this is a man of enormous accomplishment, obviously someone who has achieved great things in his life."
quote:Pence might just as well have said "Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
Pence went on to deflect any further questions about the Democratic convention in the interview with Hewitt, instead focusing on Trump's accomplishments and calling him "kind" and "extremely considerate."
quote:It will be impossible to separate out the effects of each if that moron is elected.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From this side of the pond, what bothers me is the closeness in the polls. Of course my paranoia has been increased by the Brexit vote, but on the scale of horrible events, Trump in the White House strikes me as much worse than Brexit.
quote:It's not that unusual for the polls to be close around convention time. If they're still close in a few weeks, then we may have more cause to worry. If, on the other hand, Clinton moves back fairly quickly to the lead she had before the conventions, then it may be the Trump supporters who need to worry.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The closeness of the polls is very concerning . . . .
quote:From what I'm seeing, I anticipate that Democratic-leaning groups—particularly minority groups—will have massive get-out-the-vote efforts going. Those efforts are usually extremely well organized. It's the GOTV efforts of younger voters that may be harder to predict.
. . . . particularly when differential turnout is taken into account. Trump supporters are likely to be queuing up (sorry, standing in line) at 6AM, and bringing their buddies and workmates with them, whereas I get the feeling that many Democrats will vote for Clinton, but not with the infectious enthusiasm that got the vote out for Obama.
quote:Of course, voters who turned out enthusiastically to vote for Obama might also be affected by this:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:From what I'm seeing, I anticipate that Democratic-leaning groups — particularly minority groups — will have massive get-out-the-vote efforts going. Those efforts are usually extremely well organized. It's the GOTV efforts of younger voters that may be harder to predict.
. . . . particularly when differential turnout is taken into account. Trump supporters are likely to be queuing up (sorry, standing in line) at 6AM, and bringing their buddies and workmates with them, whereas I get the feeling that many Democrats will vote for Clinton, but not with the infectious enthusiasm that got the vote out for Obama.
quote:I'm not sure why it's even debatable that Obama's enthusiastic supporters are indifferent about maintaining his legacy.
[T]he president plans to campaign aggressively for Mrs. Clinton this fall. Aides have largely cleared his calendar in October, and barring new crises, the White House expects Mr. Obama to be on the campaign trail almost daily leading up to Election Day.
quote:The Obama campaign heavily relied on and encouraged early voting in those states that have it. Traditionally, GOP campaigns have not pushed early voting as heavily, focusing on Election Day voting.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The get-out-the-vote effort on election day is crucial. This is where Romney's machine fell apart, as you recall.
quote:Trump is not worried. Neither are his supporters. It's all upside to them.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:It's not that unusual for the polls to be close around convention time. If they're still close in a few weeks, then we may have more cause to worry. If, on the other hand, Clinton moves back fairly quickly to the lead she had before the conventions, then it may be the Trump supporters who need to worry.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The closeness of the polls is very concerning . . . .
quote:I used to be cynical about the relationship between Bill and Hillary.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Of course Donald Trump can't imagine a marriage that was about anything but sex.
I was amazed, at the time of the Monica scandal, the number of women who said they couldn't respect Hillary for staying with Bill. I think they have a fabulous marriage, a great meeting of minds, a long interesting history together, a daughter they both obviously love, a shared sense of humor and interests. Why would anyone think they should give all that up because of something so ultimately meaningless. They're going to grow old together with so much to talk and laugh about, I would love to have a rocking chair on their porch.
quote:The worry has got zilch to do with the flaws in the Democratic candidate and everything to do with the lunatic demagoguery and ignorance of the Republican candidate. And the fact that some 40% of the US voters do think he's suitable.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump is not worried. Neither are his supporters. It's all upside to them.
[snip]
It's Hillary and her supporters who are and will continue to be worried.
Rightfully so...
quote:Which is of course precisely the reason someone like trump has manoeuvred himself to within spitting distance of the Whitehouse.
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
And as Tim Kaine pointed out, any time Trump says "Believe me . . ." you know not to believe him.
quote:So does that mean you'll be moving to the US, if Trump wins?
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
quote:When Gordon Brown was fretting about the succession he used to remark that "they get sick of you after the first ten years". Hilary has been in the public eye since 1991, she's done two terms as First Lady, two terms in the United States Senate and a stint as Secretary of State. During this time she has been subjected to a withering stream of hostile commentary from the media and the Republican Party. By any normal calculus of politics the Democratic Party ought to have gone for someone with fewer hostages to fortune. The fact they didn't is partly because Hilary is, actually, rather good at this and secondly because given that the Republican Party were unable to find anyone better than a shouty millionaire with no discernible qualifications for the job mean that a great many of the usual calculations don't really come into play. Frankly, against Trump, the DNC could have announced that, with hindsight, the result of the 1980 Presidential Election was a bit harsh and Jimmy Carter could have another go. I'm not sure he'd win but it would be competitive. For all their faults you wouldn't have said that about Romney, McCain and Dole. Basically, you are doing something wrong when the other lot can put someone up on a platform of "I may have my faults, but I'm not going to blow up the world in a fit of pique". It is one of the iron laws of US politics that a Democrat does not get to hand the Presidency over to another Democrat unless the Grim Reaper intervenes. The Republicans had every chance of victory with honour but have decided to go for defeat and disgrace. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Trump is not worried. Neither are his supporters. It's all upside to them.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:It's not that unusual for the polls to be close around convention time. If they're still close in a few weeks, then we may have more cause to worry. If, on the other hand, Clinton moves back fairly quickly to the lead she had before the conventions, then it may be the Trump supporters who need to worry.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The closeness of the polls is very concerning . . . .
Hillary is a weak candidate, of even weaker character. She has been running for this office for most of 20 years and people just don't like her. Furthermore, if she hadn't married the man she did no one would even know her name.
It's Hillary and her supporters who are and will continue to be worried.
Rightfully so...
quote:Brexit has already increased instability and instability begets strife. Trump has threatened world peace with one paragraph and he's barely just been nominated. The world now isn't the one of decades past. A person with no concerns about this is a person without the intelligence to understand the consequences.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
quote:The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid. We hope...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Brexit has already increased instability and instability begets strife. Trump has threatened world peace with one paragraph and he's barely just been nominated. The world now isn't the one of decades past. A person with no concerns about this is a person without the intelligence to understand the consequences.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
quote:You are of course entirely correct that there have been plenty of dreadful crises and dreadful ongoing states in the past, both distant and recent. Nobody can disagree with that.
Originally posted by rolyn:
... I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
quote:This is what Brian Beutler describes as the "if Trump wins we could always stage a coup" position.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid. We hope...
quote:Article II of the U.S. Constitution says that the "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and here we have the Senate Majority Leader suggesting that it's okay if his own party's Presidential candidate is unfit to wield that power because his (notional) cabinet appointees would be willing to throw out the Constitution in a crisis.
[Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell, doing damage control for Trump after the GOP presidential nominee threatened to abandon NATO allies, “chalk[ed] it up to a rookie mistake” — a degree of generosity he would obviously never show a Democratic presidential nominee. But the worst part about it is how McConnell explained his blasé attitude. “I think he’s wrong on that,” McConnell said. “I don’t think that view would be prevalent or held by anybody he might make secretary of state or secretary of defense.”
McConnell isn’t the first Republican to rationalize supporting Trump under the theory that Trump can be contained. But think about what this implies in an extreme scenario: Russia invades a NATO member state, Trump is inclined to abrogate the treaty, and the secretary of defense, what, mobilizes the military without the president’s approval? Here’s the Senate majority leader, the second-most powerful Republican in the country, shrugging off the tail risk of a Trump presidency, because if the going gets tough, the secretary of defense might just override Trump’s command and control of the military.
quote:No more, no less.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's obvious that you detest Hillary Clinton. But are you more relaxed about Trump becoming Commander in Chief of the United States than her?
quote:If only that were true.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The difference in the potential outcomes will be negligible in my life and in the world.
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd go so far as to say that it is actually a sin, rather than just stupid - they are not the same thing - to vote for Mr Trump.
quote:Ridiculous. That attitude would have had Europe all speaking German before 1946. The word stupid has not been overused, but under accepted.
Originally posted by rolyn:
If change is coming we might as well embrace it as wallow in a pit of fear mongering.
quote:The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
quote:I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
*Confirmed by the Senate
quote:And yet twenty years ago all the jokes were that if Hillary hadn't married the man she did nobody would even know his name.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Furthermore, if she hadn't married the man she did no one would even know her name.
quote:The Chiefs are appointed by the president from a group that owe their rank to, at least in part, political maneuvering.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
*Confirmed by the Senate
quote:He gets the bathroom part wrong. Remembering Cait going over to use the bathroom and tweeting about it to Trump. That was one of the humane things he seemed to endorse.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
quote:That may be his view, but what reason is that why it should be mine or anyone else's?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
quote:He is an opinion-leader in relatively moderate evangelical circles. Perhaps not moderate by Ship standards, but much more moderate than the caricature backwoods fundies.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That may be his view, but what reason is that why it should be mine or anyone else's?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
quote:Exactly-- they are chosen by the President. One thing Trump has demonstrated clearly both in the campaign and in the business world and on The Apprentice is that he loves to surround himself with yes-men. The Donald is not going to select a chief of staff who's going to challenge him, much less prevent him from doing something stupid. He will select folks who will tell him how brilliant he is, and when it goes south, assure him it's all great because he's great. In fact, Trump has made noises about selecting his kids for those slots.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
*Confirmed by the Senate
quote:Yet another reason for this evangelical to reject Grudem's systematic theology. I don't need another reason, but it's always nice to have a spare.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
quote:So the scenario is that in the event that President Trump decides to leave America's NATO allies flatfooted in the face of a Russian invasion, high ranking military officers will take the U.S. to war with Russia against the express orders of their Commander in Chief? I won't claim to be an expert on such things, but civilian control of the military is usually talked up a lot in most democracies, and individual generals assuming the authority to start wars with Russia on their own initiative is something that's grist for nightmarish dark comedies, not serious foreign policy.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
quote:IMO, age will prove a major factor.
Originally posted by duchess:
It's my hope that the not only straight white men will go out to vote.
quote:I suppose the other difference between the UK and US is that in the US is that staunch social conservatives are very unlikely to be anything other than staunch economic conservatives [The section on 'minorities' is indicative - presumably evangelicals feel they should be seen to care for the poor, but also feel taxes should be lower. Though exactly why lower taxes should help improve schools is never explained].
Originally posted by Eutychus:
He's making an explicit appeal to the kind of people who are staunch conservatives on DH issues
quote:They can retire, too. And Justice Ginsberg has said that the (next) president probably will need to appoint several new ones.
Originally posted by duchess:
Who is to say any of the justices will die as everyone anticipates? Yes, some look like they are on the brink of that. But even if one dies, who is to say Trump gets a reasonable person even if "conservative"?
quote:Except, of course, for those straight white elderly men who support Hillary. (Yes, they do exist. I know quite a few.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So, straight white elderly men, sucks to be you, possibly for the first time in history.
quote:The Joint Chiefs of Staff serve at the pleasure of the president; he chooses candidates with the advice and consent of the Senate. Trump couldn't select his children since the chiefs of staff of the services must be general officers, and the chairman must be an officer.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Exactly-- they are chosen by the President. One thing Trump has demonstrated clearly both in the campaign and in the business world and on The Apprentice is that he loves to surround himself with yes-men. The Donald is not going to select a chief of staff who's going to challenge him, much less prevent him from doing something stupid. He will select folks who will tell him how brilliant he is, and when it goes south, assure him it's all great because he's great. In fact, Trump has made noises about selecting his kids for those slots.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
*Confirmed by the Senate
So no, no hope for humanity there.
quote:No, because the founding fathers did not envision a process by which the president was elected by the people at all. They designed a process by which the president was elected by an electoral college (with the method of choosing electors left to the states) or by Congress. And, of course, they assumed that only white property-owning males would typically have the right to vote.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Did the founding fathers envisage a situation where the people might elect a narcissistic, unstable buffoon?
quote:So the assumption was that people like Donald Trump (a white, property-owning male) had legitimate and valid political opinions, while people like Hillary Clinton (a white, property-owning non-male) did not. I can understand why a group of wealthy white guys might think the only people with worthy to wield political power were their fellow wealthy white guys. I'm not so sure as to why this is still cited today as a legitimate sign of political moderation. "Of course they're sane and reasonable people. They're rich, melanin-deprived, and have penises! What more proof do you need?"
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:No, because the founding fathers did not envision a process by which the president was elected by the people at all. They designed a process by which the president was elected by an electoral college (with the method of choosing electors left to the states) or by Congress. And, of course, they assumed that only white property-owning males would typically have the right to vote.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Did the founding fathers envisage a situation where the people might elect a narcissistic, unstable buffoon?
quote:I didn't cite it as a legitimate sign of political moderation. I cited it as a counter to the suggestion that the founding fathers envisioned a situation where "the people" elected the president. Under the system envisioned by the founding fathers, most of "the people" had no suffrage.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not so sure as to why this is still cited today as a legitimate sign of political moderation.
quote:And if he ignores their advice, what then? Military coup? Another civil war? Does the American constitution have a clause covering what to do if the President is insane?
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation.
quote:Yes. Section four of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment states:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Does the American constitution have a clause covering what to do if the President is insane?
quote:Insanity would fall under the definition of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Of course the bar for such a thing is set deliberately high. In the hypothetical being considered Mike Pence and a majority of Trump-appointed cabinet secretaries would have to be willing to publicly declare that Trump is mentally unfit for office.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
quote:That gets a
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I said it pages before. If the choice in your view is between a louse and a double-louse, vote louse. You know it makes sense. At least this year.
quote:That's a huge and highly unlikely if, though. In all but two states, the candidate with the plurality of votes in a state gets all of the electoral votes for that state. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska (9 electoral votes total), where electors are determined by who gets the plurality in each congressional district, with the remaining two electors being determined by who gets the plurality statewide.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump has an ace in the hole. If Gary Johnson got say 10 . . . .
quote:I guess the sub-clause to this is that one hopes that Trump will fail to deliver as he has in every other business venture he has gone into.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Some time ago, Barnabas put three options for republicans voting for Trump. They were something like:
1. Squeeze your arsecheeks together and hope you don't get screwed;
quote:Very true. And there is precedent—George Wallace carried 5 states in 1968.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure it's very unlikely. But this is 2016. Odd things are happening!
quote:Silver and Wang both trend based on current polling data.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thanks for the info, but the predictors are using voting patterns that might have no connection to this election.
quote:For the most part, yes. If you look at the polling, Trump polled ahead of his Republican primary competitors pretty much from the time he announced and never really fell behind. The main people who didn't anticipate a Trump victory were those who relied on their political "gut" rather than polling (including, embarrassingly, Nate Silver in the early days of the primaries).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Did any of those sources have Trump as the Republican nominee early on?
quote:Which is the origin, I believe, of the "polls plus" model. Silver wanted to test a theory that "the party decides"- that is, that primary polls are particularly unreliable, and that past elections showed that endorsements from office holders within the party were more predictive of results.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Silver and Wang both trend based on current polling data.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thanks for the info, but the predictors are using voting patterns that might have no connection to this election.
quote:For the most part, yes. If you look at the polling, Trump polled ahead of his Republican primary competitors pretty much from the time he announced and never really fell behind. The main people who didn't anticipate a Trump victory were those who relied on their political "gut" rather than polling (including, embarrassingly, Nate Silver in the early days of the primaries).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Did any of those sources have Trump as the Republican nominee early on?
quote:Trouble is, Brenda, in any other year Trump's dreadful comments would have killed his candidacy stone dead. Here is a remarkable interview with Khizr Khan.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
To quote Andy Borowitz, an ever-reliable commentator: "Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, who have both remained silent since Trump attacked the Gold Star parents, need to realize that as GOP leaders this is the last exit before Hell."
quote:Hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment, I should think.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But where are Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan?
quote:When anyone striving to gain power is able to tap into a "general feeling", described by ordinary members of the German public who experienced the 30s, then you know something murky is going on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Strange echoes of 30s Germany, where being a hero, or a great artist, was no defence against being Jewish.
quote:Never leave out fear and stupidity.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Uncanny parallels between that and today's US do exist . An Imperial foriegn venture that went bad (03), followed by a slump (08). Throw in a bit of civil unrest with someone promising restore law and order? Bit of stretch maybe, however people are people, all it takes are the right/wrong ingredients.
quote:Yes, that's the problem. There doesn't seem to be any line that Donald Trump can cross that would cause John McCain or Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell to withdraw their support from his candidacy. I particularly liked this bit from McCain's statement:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
John McCain has just come out against Trump's statements; one may hope that he will take back his endorsement but one wouldn't hold one's breath.
quote:Aside from the candidate it's put forward for President of the United States, of course! They'll condemn his statements but continue to maintain he'll make a suitable president.
I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.
quote:That is one of the oddities of a Presidential, as opposed to a Parliamentary system. I remember reading an exchange on Twitter between some Blairite ultras, complaining that Ed Miliband was the worst possible candidate for PM. When someone pointed out they were going to vote for him, they solemnly intoned that they were going to vote for their Labour candidate. In Britain, you elect an MP, not a Prime Minister. That isn't as disingenous as it sounds. I can think of politicians whom I might like as my MP, even if I didn't want their party leader as PM.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yes, that's the problem. There doesn't seem to be any line that Donald Trump can cross that would cause John McCain or Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell to withdraw their support from his candidacy. I particularly liked this bit from McCain's statement:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
John McCain has just come out against Trump's statements; one may hope that he will take back his endorsement but one wouldn't hold one's breath.
quote:Aside from the candidate it's put forward for President of the United States, of course! They'll condemn his statements but continue to maintain he'll make a suitable president.
I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.
During her acceptance speech Hillary Clinton questioned the suitability of a president who you "can bait with a tweet". Donald Trump seems to have set out to illustrate that point as graphically as possible.
quote:Well, I suppose they may be awaiting guidance on timing from Rupert Murdoch, now he's had to take over Fox News. I think Trump is an old friend of the deeply discredited and departed Roger Ailes.
Originally posted by Callan:
It's ironic, the leading representatives of the party of muscular patriotism seem a little bit short of courage, really.
quote:That insults Castro. Seriously.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Every time I read a piece like this I am strongly reminded of Castro.
quote:Thanks for this. Interesting document. Though you'd have to know that "all inhabitants" was really meant to include women. Sometimes, seemingly universal language was meant to apply only to men. I ran page searches for "women", "woman", and "female", and they aren't mentioned at all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly not all the founders thought "male" had to be a requirement. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 allowed women to vote provided they met the property requirement ("worth fifty pounds proclamation money"). This persisted until 1807, when the franchise was removed from the women of New Jersey.
quote:Psssst...you do realize that you'll have to live with it, whichever one is elected? That there will be consequences? Unless you find another country to take you in.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Vote against it is then...
Good for you all!
quote:I saw this on Today's active threads and thought it was a reference to a Pokemon.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A giant, orange cranky toddler ...
quote:In what way?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That insults Castro. Seriously.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Every time I read a piece like this I am strongly reminded of Castro.
quote:My perspective is a bit different-- I think that many are quite bewildered and perplexed as to what they can, should, or might do. No party in living memory has had to address the issue of a markedly unsuitable candidate à la Trump. Perhaps the only other parallel was the fall of President Nixon, when it was becoming clear that even his cabinet was deserting him.
It's ironic, the leading representatives of the party of muscular patriotism seem a little bit short of courage, really.
quote:So, insult is the wrong word to use. That would indicate some level of respect for Castro that I do not have. I was aware of his problems, but was thinking along the lines of his having actually run a country. However, that was in a restricted fashion with the support of the U.S.S.R and then under the significant restraint of lack of resources. It is well possible that he could have been much worse had he more opportunity.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:In what way?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That insults Castro. Seriously.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Every time I read a piece like this I am strongly reminded of Castro.
Castro was a popular leader, but had issues with egotism, rage control, and paranoia. He frequently was his own worst enemy, and being his friend ( political or otherwise) was a dodgy proposition. I did not make that comment without having read a thing or two about Castro.
And a lot of Reinaldo Arenas.
Sure, he mellowed out eventually, but still.
Donald , please get bored, quit the campaign, and go do something that's healthy for you, and doesn't hurt anyone.quote:I don't know, take Bush's death toll vs. Castro's and you begin to see why Trump is much more dangerous.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Re the whole Castro vs Trump comparison, I would think murdering political opponents would be worse than hate speech.
quote:He's not in the oval office yet. Remember, this is a bloke who admires Putin.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Re the whole Castro vs Trump comparison, I would think murdering political opponents would be worse than hate speech.
quote:I somehow doubt your calculation takes into account the death toll for which Castro is partially responsible for from the various civil wars in Central America and Angola.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I don't know, take Bush's death toll vs. Castro's and you begin to see why Trump is much more dangerous.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Re the whole Castro vs Trump comparison, I would think murdering political opponents would be worse than hate speech.
quote:If you truly wish to have a balanced comparison, you would need to compare the entire US presidency during the years of Fidel's power. Or pick a particular 8 years, but whatever. For sake of argument, lets us say you are correct and Castro is objectively worse.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I somehow doubt your calculation takes into account the death toll for which Castro is partially responsible for from the various civil wars in Central America and Angola.
quote:Agreed with all of that. My issue with stating Trump was worse than Castro is that it is no diferrent than the partisan crap that I've heard peddled the last 16 years as to how the incumbent was no better than Hitler.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:If you truly wish to have a balanced comparison, you would need to compare the entire US presidency during the years of Fidel's power. Or pick a particular 8 years, but whatever. For sake of argument, lets us say you are correct and Castro is objectively worse.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I somehow doubt your calculation takes into account the death toll for which Castro is partially responsible for from the various civil wars in Central America and Angola.
Trump is still an unstable, unqualified fool with no aptitude for running a country which can have so devastating effect on the entire world.
quote:Um, he's gone out of his way to offend all of them.
Originally posted by Callan:
I may be missing something here, but I can't see what exactly Trump has done to reach out to Hispanics, African-Americans and women. I suspect that in the stygian depths of what passes for his soul Trump knows that as well.
quote:That would be yer typical British understatement.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Um, he's gone out of his way to offend all of them.
Originally posted by Callan:
I may be missing something here, but I can't see what exactly Trump has done to reach out to Hispanics, African-Americans and women. I suspect that in the stygian depths of what passes for his soul Trump knows that as well.
BTW, is the "Daisy, Daisy" ad the one with the little girl blowing a daisy puff, while there's a countdown to nukes?
quote:Yes and no. I think this does mean he knows he's going to lose. It also means things are likely to get ugly when he does. He's not going to take it lying down.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Trump is already lining up his excuses for losing.
“November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”
Hopeful.
quote:Confessions of a Republican
Originally posted by Callan:
It's worth having a look at some of LBJ's campaign advertisements from the 1964 election on Youtube. Two things struck me. Firstly the fact that they can be used pretty much interchangeably. ("Confessions of a Republican", "The Klan Supports Goldwater", "Daisy, Daisy").
quote:Those comparisons are stupid. Plain and simple.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Agreed with all of that. My issue with stating Trump was worse than Castro is that it is no diferrent than the partisan crap that I've heard peddled the last 16 years as to how the incumbent was no better than Hitler.
quote:I don't think that has happened before. I do think Trump is uniquely unqualified to do the job. As we have had almost daily proof.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Obama adds his voice to those saying Trump is unfit to be president. Although I guess this is hardly a surprise?
quote:The U.S. presidency (and larger constitutional system) rely in large part upon participants being willing to observe certain norms. Do the powers of the presidency extend to establishing secret prisons where 'disappeared' people are tortured? George W. Bush said that's within presidential authority, and since no one in any other part of the government was willing to say otherwise the presidency suddenly had that power.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Those comparisons are stupid. Plain and simple.
The US presidency, by nature, makes such abuses* unlikely.
*At least in scale and openness.
)quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump is notorious for not following any known norms of behavior, which means the expected limitations on the power of a Trump presidency are largely dependent upon people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan being willing to stand up to Trump. Does that seem like a good bet to make?
quote:Yes, the US government has done bad things and no I am not relying on the kindness of anyone's heart. I have said multiple times that recent US governments, especially Bush's, have been eroding rights. However, I do not think 4 years, by itself, will end in tyranny. That said, I think a Trump presidency will be damaging to the world in a way that Clinton's could not in anything but a delusional paranoid fantasy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
People don't always do the right thing. So the structure of the US gov't won't necessarily save the day.
quote:Gods,he is less coherent by the day.
Originally posted by Callan:
In breaking news, you'd need to have a heart of stone not to laugh
quote:complained that the baby's head was blocking his view?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wonder what he would've done had she breastfed the baby to quiet it?
quote:or gave us another example of his revulsion for women's fluids?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:complained that the baby's head was blocking his view?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wonder what he would've done had she breastfed the baby to quiet it?
quote:It's an interesting problem for the Republicans. If they endorse Trump, and he bombs badly, then Hilary's campaign ads in 2020 just consist of them playing re-runs of Ryan, or whoever, endorsing Trump. On the other hand Obama has just told them not to endorse Trump, so they can't not endorse Trump , for various reasons but not least, because a large part of the Republican vote appears to consist of people who think that the only legitimate role for black people in the White House involves serving mint juleps at receptions. Meanwhile Trump is, deliberately, havering over endorsing various mainstream Republicans so if Ryan, or whoever, withdraws his announcement he gets to look petty. There's not really a scenario, here, whereby the mainstream Republicans get to endorse Trump with plausible deniability, there's not really a scenario whereby mainstream Republicans get to endorse Trump and come out looking good at the end of it. And there isn't a way of weaselling out of endorsing Trump without being denounced in terms which would require qualification if the mainstream Republican concerned were Judas Iscariot, Mordred and Vidkun Quisling rolled into one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus he doesn't pay taxes.
The Paul Ryan thing; that's Trump saying to Ryan "I double-dog dare you" (to disown him, that is). I think he might be daring the wrong man. Ryan doesn't need 20/20 vision to see 2020.
quote:Hey, he's a businessman. What's the point of buying expensive kit if you don't make any use of it? You gotta sweat the assets, right?
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Not sure how relaible it is, but the Daily Kos is reporting that Trump asked 3 times in an hour long briefing why we can't just use nuclear weapons
quote:Something like this?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Apparently there have also been noises backstage today from his own team.
quote:For those who weren't paying attention there's already been one such "intervention" in the Trump campaign, the end result of which was telling campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to hit the bricks. Trump's adult children were reportedly key to that outcome.
Key Republicans close to Donald Trump's orbit are plotting an intervention with the candidate after a disastrous 48 hours led some influential voices in the party to question whether Trump can stay at the top of the Republican ticket without catastrophic consequences for his campaign and the GOP at large.
Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus, former Republican New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are among the Trump endorsers hoping to talk the real estate mogul into a dramatic reset of his campaign in the coming days, sources tell NBC News.
The group of GOP heavyweights hopes to enlist the help of Trump's children — who comprise much of his innermost circle of influential advisers — to aid in the attempt to rescue his candidacy. Trump's family is considered to have by far the most influence over the candidate's thinking at what could be a make-or-break moment for his campaign.
quote:In other words, replacing Trump as the Republican nominee is not an option unless Trump is willing to graciously and selflessly step aside for the greater good of the Republican party. Of course if Donald Trump were capable of being gracious or selfless or capable of considering anyone's good except his own (and possibly his blood relatives) this situation would have been unlikely to arise in the first place.
ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump's erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.
So how would it work?
First, Trump would have to voluntarily exit the race. Officials say there is no mechanism for forcing him to withdraw his nomination. (Trump has not given any indications that he no longer wants to be his party's nominee.)
Then it would be up to the 168 members of the Republican National Committee to choose a successor, though the process is complicated.
quote:Okay... so what would it take to remove him as president-elect or incumbent? Surely playing Ip Dip with the nuclear codes must be grounds for an incompetency ruling of some sort... what's available?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
replacing Trump as the Republican nominee is not an option
quote:There is no mechanism for removing a president-elect. An incumbent president may be removed from office via impeachment (which would require proving that Donald Trump was guilty of "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors") or when the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency. The trouble is that neither of these are really suitable to protect against what you fear a newly elected President might do with the powers of his office. That's more of an indictment of the electorate who put that power into his hands than it is of the new president.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Okay... so what would it take to remove him as president-elect or incumbent? Surely playing Ip Dip with the nuclear codes must be grounds for an incompetency ruling of some sort... what's available?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
replacing Trump as the Republican nominee is not an option
quote:So it sounds like a) he could push the button before procedure prevented him, failing a well-placed equivalent of Vasili Arkhipov b) in the event of anything short of a) there would be quite a lot of fun.
Under Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, the vice president, in conjunction with a majority of the Cabinet, may transfer the presidential powers and duties from the president to the vice president by transmitting a written declaration to the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate that the president is unable to discharge the presidential powers and duties. If this occurs, then the vice president will assume the presidential powers and duties as acting president; however, the president can declare that no such inability exists and resume the discharge of the presidential powers and duties. If the vice president and Cabinet contest this claim, it is up to Congress, which must meet within two days if not already in session, to decide the merit of the claim.
quote:So Trump can play this for laughs all the way to polling day.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The trouble is that neither of these are really suitable to protect against what you fear a newly elected President might do with the powers of his office. That's more of an indictment of the electorate who put that power into his hands than it is of the new president.
quote:An even more fanciful scenario would be to note that when the next president takes office the entire Cabinet will still be composed of Obama appointees. A newly elected president will usually pick out cabinet successors during the transition period between election and inauguration, but the actual appointing of cabinet secretaries can't happen until after inauguration and don't take effect until approved by the Senate, a process that often takes weeks.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I repeat my contention that if any of this had been submitted as a House of Cards plot line, it would have been dismissed as being far too fanciful.
quote:Ewwwww, re the eagle. However, that would be illegal, at a federal level, so he could be arrested. (Even picking up stray bald eagle feathers is illegal, unless you're Native American. You're not allowed to own them.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He has dissed the military, moms, and babies. What is left? Trampling an apple pie? Serving a bald eagle, roasted and stuffed, on a plate?
quote:It looks, even from 3,000 miles away, like he is unaware of the terms of the presidency. If he is unaware and can't be sworn in, then the United States will be without a president.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not only has Trump refused to release his tax returns, he has refused to have a physical. He has said nothing about a blind trust for his holdings that I can recall.
He seems to feel he is above all these things.
quote:Oh, no. Pat! How could you?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does God tell Pat Boone stuff? Pat says that God has lifted His hand from America, but Trump will get it back.
quote:He should only get it back slapped firmly across his sinful mouth.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God has lifted His hand from America, but Trump will get it back.
quote:Golden retriever puppies are about the cutest things on the face of the earth. How dare you insult them by comparing them to that creep's hairpiece or whatever it is.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Let's also remember that deterrence doesn't work if the bad guys know that the guy with the golden retriever puppy on his head won't use the bomb.
quote:I know. Trump kills them so they don't move about on his head too.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Golden retriever puppies are about the cutest things on the face of the earth. How dare you insult them by comparing them to that creep's hairpiece or whatever it is.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Let's also remember that deterrence doesn't work if the bad guys know that the guy with the golden retriever puppy on his head won't use the bomb.
quote:I can't make up my mind about this one.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does God tell Pat Boone stuff? Pat says that God has lifted His hand from America, but Trump will get it back.
quote:And I don't actually see him promising Trump can restore God's favour any more than Saul did.
If God can use an ass for His purpose … He can use a Donald Trump, for example
quote:Wouldn't there simply be a default to the incoming VP?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If he is unaware and can't be sworn in, then the United States will be without a president.
quote:I believe then it goes to the House of Representatives, who vote on who will be the president.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Wouldn't there simply be a default to the incoming VP?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If he is unaware and can't be sworn in, then the United States will be without a president.
quote:That's how I read it. This is the most ludicrous knight's-move reasoning imaginable to desperately find some sort of rationalization for voting Trump. The decision is almost certainly made viscerally on a "hate the female liberal" sort of basis, and then there's a flailing attempt to justify voting for a narcissistic, bullying, greedy, vain, hateful and dangerous nutcase as somehow in line with God's will.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the other hand, he clearly favours a vote for Trump. So in that way it's even more insidious than Wayne Grudem's piece, since it attempts to turn Trump's failings into positive grounds for voting for him.
quote:Which shortlist do they vote on? The remaining candidates or does it become a free-for-all?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe then it goes to the House of Representatives, who vote on who will be the president.
quote:I believe they're free to vote for whomever they please. But I'm far too lazy to go dig it up right now at 2331 at night. I think Croesus knows and he can set us straight tomorrow.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Which shortlist do they vote on? The remaining candidates or does it become a free-for-all?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe then it goes to the House of Representatives, who vote on who will be the president.
quote:I love how he gives the lie to “political correctness” by saying his grandma would have been appalled.
My grandmother would have smacked my teeth out of my head if I had referred to a woman as a fat pig[…] If one of my sons – I am getting furious just thinking about it – if one of my sons said that in a public place, they couldn’t even live in my house any more.
quote:See above. He can object, in which case it's up to Congress to decide.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I wonder what Il Duce would do if got elected and was then disbarred on the grounds of certifiable insanity./musing
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:He should only get it back slapped firmly across his sinful mouth.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God has lifted His hand from America, but Trump will get it back.
quote:It only goes the House of Representatives if there is no winner in the electoral college. If a president-elect becomes incapacitated after the electoral college has met and the votes have been counted by Congress but before the inauguration, then the vice-president elect becomes president. It not quite as clear what happens if the incapacity occurs between voting by the electoral college and certification by Congress, but it seems the result would likely be the same.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I believe then it goes to the House of Representatives, who vote on who will be the president.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Wouldn't there simply be a default to the incoming VP?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If he is unaware and can't be sworn in, then the United States will be without a president.
quote:This gets back to my earlier post about the U.S. constitutional system's reliance on norms of behavior. There's no actual legal requirement for a presidential candidate to release his tax returns, or undergo a medical exam prior to assuming office, or to place his business holdings in a blind trust (though he does have to declare what his business holdings are if he wins the presidency). Those aren't really "the terms of the presidency". They're just norms of good governance that have developed in the post-war years.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I believe then it goes to the House of Representatives, who vote on who will be the president.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Wouldn't there simply be a default to the incoming VP?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It looks, even from 3,000 miles away, like he is unaware of the terms of the presidency. If he is unaware and can't be sworn in, then the United States will be without a president.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not only has Trump refused to release his tax returns, he has refused to have a physical. He has said nothing about a blind trust for his holdings that I can recall.
He seems to feel he is above all these things.
What happens then?quote:Good on him. Waste of money keeping people in longer then they would if convicted today.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Tangential to the thread but I thought it was worth posting...
Thank you Mr. Obama. Well done.
quote:From what I've read, this isn't necessarily clear. There seems to be a split of interpretation, which some taking the position that the candidate becomes President elect when the electoral votes are cast, and others taking the position that the candidate doesn't become President elect until the votes are counted in Congress. Per the FAQ page for the National Archives' site for the Electoral College:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If it happens between December 19, 2016 and January 6, 2017 (when Congress meets to certify the electoral vote), that's when things get interesting. In that case no (valid) candidate will have a majority of electoral votes and the presidency would be decided by a contingent election in the House of Representatives . . . .
quote:This Arkansas Law Review article (reprinted at Yale) says:
As to a candidate who dies or becomes incapacitated between the meeting of electors and the counting of electoral votes in Congress, the Constitution is silent on whether this candidate meets the definition of “President elect” or “Vice President elect.” If the candidate with a majority of the electoral votes is considered “President elect,” even before the counting of electoral votes in Congress, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment applies. Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President elect will become President if the President elect dies or becomes incapacitated.
quote:(Footnotes have been omitted.)
What happens if, God forbid, the person who wins the general election in November and the electoral college tally in December dies before the electoral college votes are officially counted in Congress in January? If the decedent can be considered "the President elect" within the meaning of the Twentieth Amendment, then the rules would be clear, but it is not self-evident that a person who dies before the official counting of electoral votes in Congress is formally the "President elect." Both Article II and the Twelfth Amendment seem to focus on the formal counting of votes in the Congress as the magic, formal moment of vesting in which the winning candidate is elected as "President." Although the legislative history of the Twentieth Amendment suggests that the electoral college winner is "President elect" the moment the electoral college votes are cast, and before they are counted in Congress, the text of the Amendment fails to say this explicitly. In the absence of such explicit language, some might argue that the formal vesting rules of Article II and the Twelfth Amendment remain in effect, and that the Twentieth Amendment term "President elect" does not apply to death prior to formal vote-counting in Congress. (So too, the argument might run, the legislative history of the Twentieth Amendment plainly says that electoral votes will be counted in, and electoral college deadlocks will be resolved by, the incoming Congress, rather than the lame duck Congress; however, the text of the Amendment does not explicitly require this.)
quote:Not calling a woman a fat pig is old-fashioned politeness and chivalry. Would his grandmother have been similarly appalled had he called a man a "fat pig"?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I love how he gives the lie to “political correctness” by saying his grandma would have been appalled.
quote:His grandperson of indeterminate gender would have been appalled too, I'm sure.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I love how he gives the lie to “political correctness” by saying his grandma would have been appalled.
quote:I think that "personality disorder" is one of those terms that means that someone does not have the usual set of emotional responses but doesn't have anything tangible we can pin it on. I've seen it used to describe people as varied as serial killers to difficult old ladies.
Obviously he’ll never submit to any kind of psychological/psychiatric evaluation so chances are we’ll never know for sure, but it looks to most observers like he has a raging personality disorder.
quote:sigh Though it is fun to impugn his manhood, it is his minuscule grip on sanity which is his worst trait.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
However I think it will always be correct to slam Donald for his tiny hands. And -all- that implies.
quote:As far as his experience, yes.
Originally posted by Callan:
Trump has come from nowhere.
quote:I tend to agree - the bigotry and xenophobia are nothing new, similarly impugning opponents patriotism (see Max Cleland, John Kerry etc). Trump just ran with the same set of tactics and turned them up to 11, in that sense he has less utility to the Republican elite.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:As far as his experience, yes.
Originally posted by Callan:
Trump has come from nowhere.
But his popularity is the natural result of years of Republican politics. He is just the bare-faced version of their dog-whistle rhetoric. They created the anger, the fear in a base of supporters willing to vote against their own benefit for impossible promises.
quote:I have a feeling that there will be an endless stream of stories about questionable past events and behaviour re Trump and his family. The media (apart from Faux News of course) are going to have a field day.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are these visa problems anything significant?
quote:Not really. He's been a celebrity in the US for decades--magnified by hosting "The Apprentice" reality show. That gives him name and facial recognition, and "what will the Donald say next".
Originally posted by Callan:
Trump has come from nowhere.
quote:I haven't really understood why such a fuss is made about his hands. (And yes, I know the implications.) His hands are something that he can't help. (But maybe his hair...though there've been some days when it's looked normal, and even good.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
However I think it will always be correct to slam Donald for his tiny hands. And -all- that implies.
quote:...and not forgetting Arnie.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
. Other celebrities in politics include Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Al Franken.
quote:By coincidence, yesterday I was researching when Trump's name first came up on this thread. Technically it is true that he was not listed on the OP, but the OP was posted on 5 November, 2014, and the first reference to Trump's possible presidential ambitions is made on 6 November, 2014. To wit:
Originally posted by Callan:
Trump has come from nowhere. If you go back to the OP there is a list of Republican candidates, which doesn't include Trump but does include the line "did I miss anyone" to which the response, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is "Ooh, now you mention it..."
quote:
The highest profile person to make an issue of this was Donald Trump who frequently makes a big deal about possibly running for president in order to gin up interest in The Apprentice.
quote:LOL. I actually blocked him out. He became governor, here in California, after the previous governor lost a recall election. I did not like him as governor.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:...and not forgetting Arnie.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Other celebrities in politics include Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Al Franken.
quote:Actually, Rubio did.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It only became an issue because he himself made it an issue, in the debates. It is not anyone else who has drawn the analogy from hand size to any other body part, but he himself. And that's why it's appropriate to ding him with it, now and forever.
quote:Yes. And Trump, instead of pointing out how ridiculous Rubio was for bringing it up, took the bait and argued the point. To the point that it became a major talking point between the two in a
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Actually, Rubio did.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It only became an issue because he himself made it an issue, in the debates. It is not anyone else who has drawn the analogy from hand size to any other body part, but he himself. And that's why it's appropriate to ding him with it, now and forever.
quote:That is quite funny. It's so funny, that I forgot to read the rest of the thread before posting my appreciation.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
While there is clearly something very wrong with Donald Trump, I don’t think there’s any reason to suppose a brain tumour or dementia or the like. Let’s face it, he’s been like this for pretty much as long as anyone remembers. He’s just never had the chance to play out his dysfunction on such a grand scale before.
quote:Although, would his presidency have been worse than GB2?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thankfully, the move to ditch the "a president must be a natural born citizen" rule didn't get much traction in Congress. Otherwise, Arnold might be in the White House. They wanted to change the rule specifically so *he* could run.
quote:Hard to say. By the time anyone was considering him running, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were already running. Would he have tried to end them?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although, would his presidency have been worse than GB2?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thankfully, the move to ditch the "a president must be a natural born citizen" rule didn't get much traction in Congress. Otherwise, Arnold might be in the White House. They wanted to change the rule specifically so *he* could run.
quote:Also hard to say.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
By the time anyone was considering him running, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were already running. Would he have tried to end them?
quote:I must say it all seems much more carefully worked out than the equivalent UK system where it would probably be made up on the hoof.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This gets back to my earlier post about the U.S. constitutional system's reliance on norms of behavior.
quote:Presumably you don’t realise Mr Eastwood has been saying some pretty unpleasant things himself.
Originally posted by rolyn:
When it comes to actors, and were I an American citizen, Clint would get my vote.
quote:But none of them wen't from being a celebrity to a Presidential Candidate with no stops in-between. Clint was Mayor of Carmel, Sonny was Mayor of Palm Springs and a Congressman, Al is, IIRC, a US Senator. Reagan was a Governor, then a defeated Presidential Candidate, then President. Before being elected Governor he worked on other peoples campaigns. So when he ran in 1980, he knew how this stuff worked, which levers, when pulled delivered which outcomes, that sort of thing. None of this is true of Trump, whose previous experience consists of an abortive bid for the Presidency in 2000 and various hints that he might run subsequently - messing around, as you so aptly put it. So he's getting a really fast initiation into being The Presidential Candidate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Not really. He's been a celebrity in the US for decades--magnified by hosting "The Apprentice" reality show. That gives him name and facial recognition, and "what will the Donald say next".
Originally posted by Callan:
Trump has come from nowhere.
He's also been messing around with the possibility of running for president for a long time.
Ronald Reagan, actor, was both governor and president--and celebrity status was probably a big factor. Other celebrities in politics include Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Al Franken.
quote:I think this is magnificent spin, but just that. As other people have pointed out above, the Republicans have long included elements of xenophobia/bigotry as part of their platform. I think the problem they are facing is that they've been outflanked on the right by a demagogue and these subjects are not useful in defeating him.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I also saw some speculation today that the old guard of Republicans would prefer to see Trump go completely down in flames so they can repudiate Trumpism completely.
quote:This is one of the biggest things about Trump's temperament that disqualifies him in my mind. He is so easy to bait, so thin-skinned. Not the kind of person we want to entrust with nuclear codes, as HRC so aptly pointed out in her convention speech. (I have issues with HRC too, but she's far preferable to Mr. Tiny Hands.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. And Trump, instead of pointing out how ridiculous Rubio was for bringing it up, took the bait and argued the point.
quote:I would differentiate Trumpism from the domestic dog whistling, if only by degree. (Was the House or Senate Republican ledership suggesting they would execute immigrants?)
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think this is magnificent spin, but just that. As other people have pointed out above, the Republicans have long included elements of xenophobia/bigotry as part of their platform. I think the problem they are facing is that they've been outflanked on the right by a demagogue and these subjects are not useful in defeating him.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I also saw some speculation today that the old guard of Republicans would prefer to see Trump go completely down in flames so they can repudiate Trumpism completely.
They were able to outflank the Democrats by yelling that they'd execute 10 immigrants a day (or whatever) and are now in the position where they are up against someone who sounds like he really means it.
quote:It should be noted the guy works now for a consulting firm tied to Clinton, as gawker pointed out. .
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A guy who was the director of the CIA has an op-ed piece in today's NY Times...
quote:Of course it may be that he took the position in this consulting firm exactly because he had the sentiments he refers to in this article.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:It should be noted the guy works now for a consulting firm tied to Clinton, as gawker pointed out. .
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A guy who was the director of the CIA has an op-ed piece in today's NY Times...
Not saying what he says isn't true, just this is campaign time and he's not exactly a neutral.
quote:
Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits.
quote:Ok, so why is important then that its a "a former CIA director" who is saying these things? I'm far more interested in the positions of people who worked under Bush II, to be honest.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regardless of partisanship, that is not a conclusion that calls for a rockert surgeon
quote:At a guess, there are a number of people, from across the political spectrum, who have been in public service, who are in various degrees disturbed and/or appalled by the possibility of a Trump Presidency. They wouldn't normally come out of the woodwork, but reckon it's justified this time. If you are looking for a secondary concern, it is probably the recognition that Hillary Clinton may be vulnerable this year. Flawed or not, they would much rather see her in the job than Trump.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ok, so why is important then that its a "a former CIA director" who is saying these things? I'm far more interested in the positions of people who worked under Bush II, to be honest.
Bloomberg - now there was a devastating neutral's position
quote:I'm assuming it's because the CIA director would work very closely with the Secretary of State, and so would have some intimate knowledge of HRC's mode of working and interacting with others? Just a thought.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ok, so why is important then that its a "a former CIA director" who is saying these things?
quote:You did not read the article thoroughly, that was the very same person.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm far more interested in the positions of people who worked under Bush II, to be honest.
quote:Now, one can still doubt his intentions. But seriously, it fits with the way Russia operates since during the Cold War and that is where Putin was trained.
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
quote:Anyone could play Trump.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What struck me about the CIA guy's words was his remarks about Putin. An ex KGB agent, Putin must know all there is to know about harping upon psychological weaknesses. Putin will be able to play Trump like a kazoo.
quote:But never a woman with a red overcharge button.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Anyone could play Trump.
quote:Um, you want their positions re Hillary? If so, why? They didn't work with her. The former CIA director did.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ok, so why is important then that its a "a former CIA director" who is saying these things? I'm far more interested in the positions of people who worked under Bush II, to be honest.
quote:Goofs happen during diplomacy. At least this one wasn't deeply insulting. And both parties laughed. There've been bad goofs during various US diplomatic visits to China. And when Queen Elizabeth paid a state visit to Pres. Gerald Ford, the US Marine band played "The Lady Is A Tramp" when they were dancing together!
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:But never a woman with a red overcharge button.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Anyone could play Trump.
quote:Yeah, nearly 70 years of marriage, but what about before that?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And when Queen Elizabeth paid a state visit to Pres. Gerald Ford, the US Marine band played "The Lady Is A Tramp" when they were dancing together!
quote:EXCEPT you all are missing the point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given that he said, and I quote via cut-and-paste, "I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room," and that the next three paragraphs after that also give his personal observations of working with HRC at State, I am going to have to call bulltookey on your claim.
quote:I'm not sure that he necessarily is a wild card. I bet ambitious people are taking note, and even if Trump loses the stage is set for someone slightly more self aware and slick to adopt the same strategy and tap into the same constituency and emotions.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course, this is the Brexit year and I guess all forecasting will be taken with a pinch of salt. Trump remains a "one-off", a "wild card".
quote:Fair point. I hope you are wrong. Tapping into anger and frustration, identifying "the real enemy", promising a golden age, making "trust me" noises. All grist to the mill to would-be demagogues. Mind you, flamboyancy normally comes along with demagoguery. But a bit more subtle, a bit toned down? Yes, I guess someone might be working on that.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I'm not sure that he necessarily is a wild card. I bet ambitious people are taking note, and even if Trump loses the stage is set for someone slightly more self aware and slick to adopt the same strategy and tap into the same constituency and emotions.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course, this is the Brexit year and I guess all forecasting will be taken with a pinch of salt. Trump remains a "one-off", a "wild card".
quote:Yes, especially since Trump has already said the election will be rigged. And there will be, soon or in the far future, someone who idolizes Trump, and wants to be president so he can take up Trump's crusade.
Originally posted by Huia:
I don't know if I am way off beam here, but if Trump is decimated there may be a large group of people who feel angry and desperate, who feel that they have nothing to lose, unless some of the inequalities are addressed.
Huia
quote:Sufficient unto the day is the eedjit thereof.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There are always lunatics. But the best we can do is to deal with the one under the spotlight now. The others we will have to cope with when they come.
quote:Who do the dems have to run against him that is capable of a blowout? And what is the mechanism by which they replace their nominee?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It will have far less credence if he loses by, oh, thirty percentage points. That's why it has to be a blowout.
quote:That's the terror and fascination of it. The Tiny Fingered One will go off script, sure as the sun will rise. But where, when with the explosion be?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
So Trump to refocus on the economy this week. Tax cuts and a regulation pause among his ideas. I wonder what happens if Trump actually keeps on message for a few days. Not sure he can do it but are the Dems able to pivot if necessary?
quote:No one has ever won the popular vote by such a margin. Even the famously lopsided contests of Nixon v. McGovern or Reagan v. Mondale were won by 23% and 18%, respectively.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Who do the dems have to run against him that is capable of a blowout? And what is the mechanism by which they replace their nominee?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It will have far less credence if he loses by, oh, thirty percentage points. That's why it has to be a blowout.
quote:Clinton may very well win the Presidency, but it will require her hiding from the press as she has been for months, and the full effort of the current POTUS (professional campaigner) for many weeks on the trail to make it happen.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:No one has ever won the popular vote by such a margin. Even the famously lopsided contests of Nixon v. McGovern or Reagan v. Mondale were won by 23% and 18%, respectively.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Who do the dems have to run against him that is capable of a blowout? And what is the mechanism by which they replace their nominee?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It will have far less credence if he loses by, oh, thirty percentage points. That's why it has to be a blowout.
quote:Donald, it's not nice to hack someone's account and post as them.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I've had a long think about it, and I've decided that I will vote for Donald Trump at the next General Election. I believe that he is a good and decent man, very honest, very good and very decent. I believe he has made tremendous sacrifices for the American people, and that he will make sure, according to his word, that America will be great again.
quote:Sebastapol?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:That's the terror and fascination of it. The Tiny Fingered One will go off script, sure as the sun will rise. But where, when with the explosion be?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
So Trump to refocus on the economy this week. Tax cuts and a regulation pause among his ideas. I wonder what happens if Trump actually keeps on message for a few days. Not sure he can do it but are the Dems able to pivot if necessary?
quote:Well those are the stakes.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary is an embarrassment and couldn't blow out Adolf Hitler by 30 points.
quote:This is literally the scenario I'm writing this very minute.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Sebastapol?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:That's the terror and fascination of it. The Tiny Fingered One will go off script, sure as the sun will rise. But where, when with the explosion be?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
So Trump to refocus on the economy this week. Tax cuts and a regulation pause among his ideas. I wonder what happens if Trump actually keeps on message for a few days. Not sure he can do it but are the Dems able to pivot if necessary?
quote:But this is not a usual election cycle, you will agree. The Tiny Fingered One himself will tell you that he is not a usual candidate. One must have hope!
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:No one has ever won the popular vote by such a margin. Even the famously lopsided contests of Nixon v. McGovern or Reagan v. Mondale were won by 23% and 18%, respectively.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Who do the dems have to run against him that is capable of a blowout? And what is the mechanism by which they replace their nominee?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It will have far less credence if he loses by, oh, thirty percentage points. That's why it has to be a blowout.
quote:
The prospect of Republicans voting for Stein en masse may seem half-baked. But note that in both the CNN and McClatchy/Marist polls, the percent of Republicans voting for Stein, while small, is 1 point more than that of the Democrats. If by November, more and more Republicans feel like they can’t stomach either Trump’s instability, Johnson’s social liberalism or Clinton’s likely Supreme Court nominees, they may conclude that elevating Stein provides Republicans with the most tangible political benefit.
quote:mousethief, I'm not sure what state and federal law has to say about such statements. I suppose there may be a defence to be made out of "vagueness". And that actually worries me more than anything else. I suppose it is possible that he knew what he was doing by saying that, so he "feathered" it to stay (maybe just) within the law.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this passes the reasonable man test as an incitement to shooting HRC, and by implication to murder.
quote:Not by a long shot. It's all too vague. Your reasonable man would be laughed out of court.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this passes the reasonable man test as an incitement to shooting HRC, and by implication to murder.
quote:I think it's likely that Trump "feathered" what he said though I doubt he consulted any lawyers or legal documents or that pesky Constitution thing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose it is possible that he knew what he was doing by saying that, so he "feathered" it to stay (maybe just) within the law.
I've been around for seven and a half decades, been politically aware for 6 of those, have been following US Presidential Elections since 1956. I think what is happening here is without precedent or parallel, certainly in my time as an observer.
quote:Note how it ignores the second sentence of Trump's controversial remarks.
.@RealDonaldTrump is right. If @HillaryClinton gets to pick her anti-#2A #SCOTUS judges, there’s nothing we can do. #NeverHillary
quote:These guys are defending the indefensible. Just add it to the long list of things the NRA ought to be ashamed about.
“If she gets to pick her judges ― nothing you can do, folks,” Trump told supporters. “Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know.”
quote:Dumb is the wrong word, IMO. It implies more thought goes into what he says than is actually the case.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Trump appears to be making the classic mistake of the political beginner: assuming that what gets applause from his core supporters will also win over the wider electorate. There's a long way to go, though, and I keep thinking: "surely he can't be that dumb?"
quote:I would agree that he thought it was a joke. He thought it was funny to joke about shooting a woman, assassinating a political opponent.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Mister Bammy was probably right, that Mr. Trump intended to be " funny," but after this year's harrowing onslaught of gun violence in the US it was a pretty damn sick joke, right up there with Reagan goofing on an ICBM strike. And even in the most temperate of national moods, I can't imagine anyone deciding candidates making jokes about assassinating people after they are elected would be anything to make light of.
quote:Oh, yeah, and Vince Foster, too... All this chatter does is legitimize Trump's horrific dog-whistles. Wikileaks has jumped the shark.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile, I have been offered this story as a counter to the 2nd amendment one: "Trump's just talking about killing people, Hillary's doing it...".
quote:Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't joke about assassination. Witness the MP killed in the UK, Jo Cox, by somebody who allegedly shouted, 'Britain First'. There are plenty of nutters who take these things seriously.
quote:I was never that impressed with wikileaks. Can anybody cite one shocking, game-changing revelation from the diplomatic cables? They were hyped up for weeks("We will soon be seeing the crimes of the empire laid bare!!"), and then, when they finally hit the news, it was mostly stuff like American diplomats yukking it up about how some British cabinet minister is a real horn dog.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Oh, yeah, and Vince Foster, too... All this chatter does is legitimize Trump's horrific dog-whistles. Wikileaks has jumped the shark.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile, I have been offered this story as a counter to the 2nd amendment one: "Trump's just talking about killing people, Hillary's doing it...".
quote:I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the President can nominate whomever he or she pleases, but it's the Senate that confirms. They certainly have an example fresh before their eyes, where our present sorry excuse for a Senate has vowed not to confirm the President's appointment of [the late sorry excuse for a] Justice Scalia's replacement.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
there is nothing you can do
quote:Yes, good point-- but please when you're quoting me quoting the Donald, please, for the sake of all that's holy, make sure it's clear I'm quoting Trump!!!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the President can nominate whomever he or she pleases, but it's the Senate that confirms. They certainly have an example fresh before their eyes, where our present sorry excuse for a Senate has vowed not to confirm the President's appointment of [the late sorry excuse for a] Justice Scalia's replacement.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
there is nothing you can do
quote:He wrote a whole book on it - basically, aggressive, sexual and other impulses break through in many jokes, which are normally taboo, as with the Freudian slip. Example: that's no lady, that's my wife.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Didn't Freud have something to say about the ideas that sneak out when people make jokes?
The trouble is, something similar might sneak out from me with regard to Trump - though it is many times less likely to trigger something in someone else.
Actually, IMHO, he sometimes has a "Sinatra and the Rat Pack" thing going: cool, controlled, elegant. (And yes, I know they weren't necessarily that way in private!)
quote:
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
quote:And this one
He repeated the allegation three more times for emphasis.
Trump also pointedly referred to the president by his full legal name: Barack Hussein Obama.
quote:This guy is whipping up hatred.
Trump lobbed the allegation midway through his rally at a sports arena, where riled-up supporters shouted obscenities about Clinton and joined in unison to shout “lock her up.” He railed against the fact that the Orlando shooter’s father, Seddique Mateen, was spotted in the crowd behind Clinton during a Monday rally in Florida, adding, “Of course he likes Hillary Clinton.”
quote:Write DECEASED - RETURN TO SENDER on the envelope and pop it right back into the mailbox.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He may write a letter, politely asking to be removed from the lists, but I know that this will have no effect whatsoever.
quote:(declaration of interest: this is why you should never resort to machine translation, either
one of the core problems with machine learning: bias in the sample-set. The people that Trump relies upon to give him his success feedback are the people who show up for Trump rallies, who are the most extreme, least-representative group of potential Trump voters. The more Trump optimizes for this limited group, the more he de-optimizes for the rest of the world.
)
quote:Really? Would you (or anyone) like to defend Mr Trump's claim (which you can see him making in this video) that President Obama "founded Isis"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
As far as shit human beings go, Trump has nothing on The Beast.
quote:Given how often companies he is fronting mess up, I doubt very much that he has any decision making support but his family and a couple of guys he currently likes. He cheaps out on everything. Lawyers on retainer? Sure, but he decides when to call them in. Otherwise, he's relying upon underpaid people who just may not know what needs to be done.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
"Clerical oversight" my arse. Trump has an army of lawyers, accountants and the like to keep him and his firms out of trouble.
...
quote:Way to cede the moral high ground.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really?
quote:Would have been a waste of time.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Way to cede the moral high ground.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really?
quote:Please let that day be Wednesday November 9th 2016.
Originally posted by nickel:
The day is coming when we will have heard the last from Trump. Maybe 3 months from now, maybe 4 years, maybe 8 years. But the day is coming when he will again be easy to ignore. That's what I keep repeating to myself.
quote:This link is very true. It is not comedy, but reportage (whatever that is). Donald J Trump will not only be President of the United Staaates but President of the entire Universe, no, President of all Universes known or unknown.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Zapp Brannigan does Trump.
quote:Depends on who's consuming it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And normally there is no such thing as bad publicity. But not this year.
quote:True. But it'd be far, far worse if he won, or even lost in a close contest. It'll be far easier to put the lid down on the commode and flush him, if he loses spectacularly, in a historic blowout that no one would ever want to emulate. In an ideal universe, his very name will be radioactive in political circles, Hitlerian, Stalinesque, in the tradition of Pol Pot,
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The damage Trump is doing will extend far beyond November, regardless of how badly he loses.
quote:He has wreaked havoc with the Republican Party. After the way they've acted for the past decade or two, they have certainly needed a major upheaval. This may be his one contribution to U.S. politics (but only if he loses).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The damage Trump is doing will extend far beyond November, regardless of how badly he loses.
quote:NOpe. It might be his one positive contribution. His major effect is acceptable hate.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:He has wreaked havoc with the Republican Party. After the way they've acted for the past decade or two, they have certainly needed a major upheaval. This may be his one contribution to U.S. politics (but only if he loses).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The damage Trump is doing will extend far beyond November, regardless of how badly he loses.
quote:The article calls Trump's behaviour as biting the hand that feeds him. Problem is, despite the wound, they are still feeding him.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A deliciously caustic yet accurate article that is not behind a paywall, about the current state of play. Trump has blamed all his problems upon the wicked media, because it is never under any circumstance his responsibility.
quote:It will probably be Obama's fault.
Originally posted by simontoad:
But I don't reckon that's the Trump way. He is going to whinge and whine and talk about cheating and claim that the Clinton Administration somehow stole the election from him, or the whole system is rigged and has no legitimacy.
quote:I think we can expect the classic "October Surprise" this round. Campaigns hold back a supposedly devastating story or insinuation, and spring it the month before the election.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's the current trajectory, although twelve weeks is an eternity in politics and anything can change.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think the damage Trump does will depend on how he handles losing. If he takes the conventional approach of conceding gracefully and calling for unity behind Clinton, everything should be just fine.
quote:You're right, this is one of the best articles I've read. I wouldn't have believed it, but I actually found myself feeling sorry for him* because he seems so much like a frustrated toddler who needs to have clear boundaries set. Scary behaviour in an adult though, and definitely not someone I would want to see in any position of power.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A key article from the NY Times from inside Trump's campaign. This is worth using one of your free reads on. What strikes me is how the man is utterly controlled by his temperament. Even when he acknowledges the need to change, wishes to change, promises everyone that he will change -- he can't. He cannot help himself. He is totally unsuited to run so much as a car wash.
quote:Maybe Russia?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do like the idea that if he loses spectacularly he will quit the country in a huff. Perhaps he will take his (alleged) billions and his (reported) zillions of supporters and become a citizen of ... of where? Surely not Mexico. The Canadians are famously nice, but they're not stupid. Didn't Britain have a referendum to keep him out?
quote:Crimea.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Maybe Russia?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do like the idea that if he loses spectacularly he will quit the country in a huff. Perhaps he will take his (alleged) billions and his (reported) zillions of supporters and become a citizen of ... of where? Surely not Mexico. The Canadians are famously nice, but they're not stupid. Didn't Britain have a referendum to keep him out?
quote:I used to believe that. Until I've seen the work Silver has done in the US.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
To paraphrase Mark Twain (who borrowed it from Benjamin Disraeli): "There are lies, damned lies, and polls."
quote:Polls provide a decent measure of the current state of the U.S. electorate, and can be analyzed to project trends into the future. On the other hand, the entire premise of political campaigns is that they are able to change the opinion of the electorate, either by moving votes from one column to another or by convincing voters to turn out or stay home.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I used to believe that. Until I've seen the work Silver has done in the US.
We've had issues up here in Canada and in the UK with the assumptions polling companies use to interpret their data - Canadian firms assume a % of the no comments will go in a certain way while the UK loves the binary swing thing.
But the 2 party state approach along with the depth and long history of the polling across the US allows for more precise predictions.
Still...way too early and a lot riding on the GOTV.
quote:You reckon? I believe that Trump uses boorishness and aggression as a cover for a colossal lack of self-confidence.
Originally posted by HCH:
Interestingly, Trump has stated that he will not change his style: he is who he is. This is an actual statement of integrity, a refusal to falsify himself (although he seems to be willing to lie about everything else). All this time I thought his only favorable quality was that he does not lack self-confidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Or other inadequacies (cough tiny hands cough).
quote:This Onion piece is funny, but also I suspect pretty accurate.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:You reckon? I believe that Trump uses boorishness and aggression as a cover for a colossal lack of self-confidence.
Originally posted by HCH:
Interestingly, Trump has stated that he will not change his style: he is who he is. This is an actual statement of integrity, a refusal to falsify himself (although he seems to be willing to lie about everything else). All this time I thought his only favorable quality was that he does not lack self-confidence.
quote:I actually hope he doesn't. Look what happened to Julian Assange. Maybe he and Trump can become roommates in Moscow.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump has evidently gotten his first security briefing. Anyone think he'll actually manage to keep all of it secret?
quote:Except its not certain he is really as rich as he portrays himself to be.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There's a character in Welcome To Night Vale who is satirically presented as the town's best, most deserving citizen - because he has the most money. That seems to me to be the problem with Trump. He believes he deserves to be in charge because he's rich. Whenever he's asked why he should be president, he pretty much responds "because I'm rich, so I'm obviously really good at everything."
quote:What are you suggesting? That he might keep it all on his personal server and email his employees about it through his gmail account?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump has evidently gotten his first security briefing. Anyone think he'll actually manage to keep all of it secret?
quote:Not Hilary's finest hour. Still, the connections between Trump's coterie and Putin's empire are well known. Advantage Clinton I'd say.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:What are you suggesting? That he might keep it all on his personal server and email his employees about it through his gmail account?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump has evidently gotten his first security briefing. Anyone think he'll actually manage to keep all of it secret?
No one would be so stupid.
Well...almost no one.
quote:. . . but enough about Colin Powell.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:What are you suggesting? That he might keep it all on his personal server and email his employees about it through his gmail account?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump has evidently gotten his first security briefing. Anyone think he'll actually manage to keep all of it secret?
No one would be so stupid.
Well...almost no one.
)
quote:I'm guessing that by "eggs on Twitter" you mean "Governor of Arizona". The only thing worse than the juvenile rhetoric this time around is the lazy excuses after the fact. Although these kinds of alleged "stumble[s] of the tongue" aren't really anything new.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That having been said, do independents and other people unsure right now really make a decision to vote based on email protocols and who's former chief of staff got money from Putin? Likewise, do eggs on Twitter really think the word "Killary" is going to win Trump the election and do fresh faced Dems on Twitter really think daily Trump hashtags are going to stop Trump?
quote:Actually I meant the everyday people out there posting things on twitter thinking it will help change the world. This election is not going to be won on Facebook or Twitter or even on the Ship.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm guessing that by "eggs on Twitter" you mean...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That having been said, do independents and other people unsure right now really make a decision to vote based on email protocols and who's former chief of staff got money from Putin? Likewise, do eggs on Twitter really think the word "Killary" is going to win Trump the election and do fresh faced Dems on Twitter really think daily Trump hashtags are going to stop Trump?
Its ultimately going to be won in the GOTV.
quote:Game Of Thrones Videotapes?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What is "GOTV", please? Thanks.
quote:Today:
A firm run by Donald Trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.
The lobbying included attempts to gain positive press coverage of Ukrainian officials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. Another goal: undercutting American public sympathy for the imprisoned rival of Ukraine's then-president. At the time, European and American leaders were pressuring Ukraine to free her.
Gates personally directed the work of two prominent Washington lobbying firms in the matter, the emails show. He worked for Manafort's political consulting firm at the time.
quote:What happened to "extreme vetting"?
Paul Manafort on Friday resigned as Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, after the Republican presidential nominee earlier this week announced a new leadership structure for his campaign.
“This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign. I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success," Trump said in a statement.
quote:Bankrupt Reporters' Exchange?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It turns out that sending a brick with a BRE taped to it does have a good effect!)
quote:Business Reply Envelope (meaning one where the recipient has to pay the postage).
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:Bankrupt Reporters' Exchange?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It turns out that sending a brick with a BRE taped to it does have a good effect!)
Basically Rational Euphemism?
Bonkers Republican E-mail?
Baby Rwandan Eel?
Bitter, Rancid Elephant?
quote:Thank you!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Business Reply Envelope (meaning one where the recipient has to pay the postage).
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:Bankrupt Reporters' Exchange?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It turns out that sending a brick with a BRE taped to it does have a good effect!)
Basically Rational Euphemism?
Bonkers Republican E-mail?
Baby Rwandan Eel?
Bitter, Rancid Elephant?
quote:Unless you want the Postal Inspector knocking at your door, you don't want to be shipping things like that (which is why the college guys I knew sent things like your aforementioned brick).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I consider that I have exhibited a truly Christian restraint, neatly packing up a nice dry brick. I have cats, after all, and they use their cat boxes. There is also the question of dairy products -- it is very hot in the US this month.
quote:I don't have to google. There's one in my community-- right out there on the boardwalk for all to see.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Very unflattering naked statues of Trump are appearing in various U.S. cities. If you have a strong stomach, Google "naked Trump statues" or something similar. I don't think any link I could post for them would be Safe-for-W*rk.
quote:The best response so far has been by the New York City Parks Department which stated, after removing the statue, "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small".
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Very unflattering naked statues of Trump are appearing in various U.S. cities. If you have a strong stomach, Google "naked Trump statues" or something similar. I don't think any link I could post for them would be Safe-for-W*rk.
quote:Really really poorly written IMHO. Doesn't interview any of the major evangelical leaders who have supported Trump, doesn't mention or acknowledge must less interview those who have publicly denounced him. It's full of analysis from political operatives but none from the people it's purporting to speak for. Wasn't even on top of the news enough to catch Dobson's quick backflip on Trump's so-called conversion.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From Salon, an interview explaining why religious conservatives support Trump.
quote:IMHO, think twice before sending anything to a candidate. The Secret Service and FBI may get involved, and they take this stuff seriously. Records are kept. Visits happen.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Unless you want the Postal Inspector knocking at your door, you don't want to be shipping things like that (which is why the college guys I knew sent things like your aforementioned brick).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I consider that I have exhibited a truly Christian restraint, neatly packing up a nice dry brick. I have cats, after all, and they use their cat boxes. There is also the question of dairy products -- it is very hot in the US this month.
quote:Although in my experience religion reporting never was at any great height, at last as regards quality.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Bleh. Could have been written by a high school intern. Shows the depths journalism, and particularly religion reporting, has sunk to these days.
quote:In case you're not familiar with it: GetReligion.org.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although in my experience religion reporting never was at any great height, at last as regards quality.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Bleh. Could have been written by a high school intern. Shows the depths journalism, and particularly religion reporting, has sunk to these days.
quote:If the visual image is too much for the censor, perhaps
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Very unflattering naked statues of Trump are appearing in various U.S. cities. If you have a strong stomach, Google "naked Trump statues" or something similar. I don't think any link I could post for them would be Safe-for-W*rk.
quote:Thank you! Excellent article, too -- the top one being on the Target restroom controversy, and the imbalance in reporting in the mainstream media.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In case you're not familiar with it: GetReligion.org.
quote:I think it's a really good website. FYI, one of the main contributors, Terry Mattingly, is Orthodox, so he's always picking up on failure to "get" things Eastern. (He's pretty good with other denominations, too.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Thank you! Excellent article, too -- the top one being on the Target restroom controversy, and the imbalance in reporting in the mainstream media.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In case you're not familiar with it: GetReligion.org.
quote:Experience isn't everything. Churchill's CV includes the Dardanelles campaign (Gallipoli and all that) of 1915.
Originally posted by HCH:
It's preposterous. Before Churchill became Prime Minister, he had already served in numerous posts in the British government, and he also had extensive experience in uniform. He has superbly qualified. Trump, on the other hand, has no military or governmental experience at all. Trump could hardly resemble Churchill less.
quote:Churchill did sell his pre-war magnum opus The History of the English-Speaking Peoples in advance to several different publishers. Possibly also more of his researchers' words ended up on the page that is considered altogether respectable.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does this comport with the actual Churchill?
quote:If Gallipoli had been persecuted the way Churchill had prescribed, it might have come off much differently. As it is, he really can't be blamed that other people completely fucked up his plans and did something completely different in the exact same place.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Experience isn't everything. Churchill's CV includes the Dardanelles campaign (Gallipoli and all that) of 1915.
Originally posted by HCH:
It's preposterous. Before Churchill became Prime Minister, he had already served in numerous posts in the British government, and he also had extensive experience in uniform. He has superbly qualified. Trump, on the other hand, has no military or governmental experience at all. Trump could hardly resemble Churchill less.
quote:He was also a racist and shares the responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians, amongst other things.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Agreed. As I understand it, Churchill had a somewhat volatile disposition, but he also has experience and eloquence to rein that in. Falwell is really grasping to make that comparison.
quote:I recommend this series to anyone. Churchill is an entertaining writer, and its popular history. It's not great on the early stuff, but scholarship has changed much from his day. I'm told by Wikkipedia that he started writing it when out of Government in the thirties, stopped for the war, and had it published in the fifties. I'm off to google "Was Churchill a Racist?" I'm sure he was, being British, white and born in 1874, but you never know.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Churchill did sell his pre-war magnum opus The History of the English-Speaking Peoples in advance to several different publishers. Possibly also more of his researchers' words ended up on the page that is considered altogether respectable.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does this comport with the actual Churchill?
So to that extent there is some comparison to be drawn.
quote:Well, as envisioned by Michael O'Donoghue back in the 1970s, maybe...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In today's POST, Jerry Falwell Jr. describes Trump as Churchillian and says we should vote for him. Does this comport with the actual Churchill?
quote:Rubbish. He was derided in his day for his attitudes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is idle to complain that Churchill was a racist. You might as well accuse him of not having a Twitter account.
quote:True, but those who derided him were little better, While racism is still endemic, racial discrimination is now illegal but then it was a cornerstone of British foreign policy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Rubbish. He was derided in his day for his attitudes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is idle to complain that Churchill was a racist. You might as well accuse him of not having a Twitter account.
quote:So he was a democrat?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Rubbish. He was derided in his day for his attitudes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is idle to complain that Churchill was a racist. You might as well accuse him of not having a Twitter account.
quote:True, but if we do not excuse that in our enemies, we cannot excuse it in our own.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:True, but those who derided him were little better, While racism is still endemic, racial discrimination is now illegal but then it was a cornerstone of British foreign policy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Rubbish. He was derided in his day for his attitudes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is idle to complain that Churchill was a racist. You might as well accuse him of not having a Twitter account.
quote:On twitter, an egg is the default icon you get when you create an account. Generally, a "twitter egg" is implying that the account was created for a specific goal, usually to support or oppose something/someone, with the implication that they're bots or sockpuppets.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Actually I meant the everyday people out there posting things on twitter thinking it will help change the world. This election is not going to be won on Facebook or Twitter or even on the Ship.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm guessing that by "eggs on Twitter" you mean...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That having been said, do independents and other people unsure right now really make a decision to vote based on email protocols and who's former chief of staff got money from Putin? Likewise, do eggs on Twitter really think the word "Killary" is going to win Trump the election and do fresh faced Dems on Twitter really think daily Trump hashtags are going to stop Trump?
quote:To whom? You? Obviously they were persuasive to the people making them.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
quote:If people want to be persuaded that the Greatest Living Englishman was just that, then they will be thus persuaded.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:To whom? You? Obviously they were persuasive to the people making them.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
quote:This most clearly does not answer the question posed. One wonders why it was even posted.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:If people want to be persuaded that the Greatest Living Englishman was just that, then they will be thus persuaded.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:To whom? You? Obviously they were persuasive to the people making them.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
quote:I wonder why I bother too at times.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This most clearly does not answer the question posed. One wonders why it was even posted.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:If people want to be persuaded that the Greatest Living Englishman was just that, then they will be thus persuaded.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:To whom? You? Obviously they were persuasive to the people making them.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
quote:Just because people believe things doesn't mean their opinions are persuasive.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:To whom? You? Obviously they were persuasive to the people making them.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
quote:Why does this not also apply to yourself and Gee D?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Just because people believe things doesn't mean their opinions are persuasive.
quote:Curtin only did what he did because Australia couldn't get it together about the Statute of Westminster, you (Australia) expressly gave Churchill the power to direct Australian forces by not adopting the Statute of Westminster in 1931. That has nothing to do with the Dominions and everything to do with Australian politics.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Churchill's blunder at Gallipoli must be acknowledged, and the attempts to explain away the disaster as either the fault of those putting the idea into action, and then onto those actually engaged in the battle are just attempts. None has been persuasive.
The other major blunder of execution was the return to the Gold Standard in 1925. An immediate and major effect of this was to create what we would now call a recession; in the longer term it deepened the depression in the UK with higher levels of unemployment than would otherwise have been the case.
Churchill also had a romantic attachment to the British Empire and in particular to the Indian Empire. Had he been returned to power in 1945 the transition to independence in the sub-continent would have been delayed and even more blood would have been shed. Along the same lines was his failure to understand the real effect of the Statute of Westminster II and flowing from that his belief that he could direct the deployment of the forces of the Dominions. Fortunately for Australia, Curtin did understand the consequences and withdrew Australian forces for home defence.
Very limited relevance to the US election but an interesting tangent.
quote:I'm sorry but what is your point? That we shouldn't give out opinions? Or is it just you don't like the opinions discussed.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Why does this not also apply to yourself and Gee D?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Just because people believe things doesn't mean their opinions are persuasive.
quote:I already have. Perhaps you missed it.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
If you think this opinion about Churchill is wrong, just come out and say it.
quote:I do want to debate. For that reason, I asked for names of historians who agreed with you. None were given, only "well it's possible to think it's Churchill's fault." Well clearly. But that's not debate.
Otherwise....well I don't really care if you don't want to debate the issue cause this is your problem, not mine.
quote:As opposed to which, Menzies announcement was that the UK was at war and that "therefore Australia is also at war". Now that was Menzies, but his comments represented the views of many Australians at the time, and the general theory, clearly misunderstood, of the unity of the Crown. Why did not Australia not adopt the Statute of Westminster earlier? A range of reasons, one being a strong sentimental attachment to the UK - still called the Old Country and home by many. Then, the Australian population in 1939 was still under 7 million, while the Canadian was probably over 11 million by then; a small country with no large and generally friendly neighbours to speak of.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Curtin only did what he did because Australia couldn't get it together about the Statute of Westminster, you (Australia) expressly gave Churchill the power to direct Australian forces by not adopting the Statute of Westminster in 1931. That has nothing to do with the Dominions and everything to do with Australian politics.
Churchill never even tried to direct Canadian forces as he hadn't a leg to stand on; we had adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the question was long-settled. Canada's declaration of war was a few days later than Britain's because Mackenzie-King wanted to make that exact point.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Mousethief, start with the Official History of WW I under Bean's general editorship. For an official history, the criticism of Churchill is totally unexpected. Then read Serle's biography of Monash, and from there to works such as Jeffrey Grey's work on the war with Turkey. If you want something pretty easy to read, Les Carlyon's book is recent and non-academic.
quote:I thought Mousethief was after chapters dealing with the conception of the idea and its subsequent development, submission for approval and then the tactical planning rather than a full description of the débacle.
Originally posted by Tukai:
One whole volume of Bean's history is about Gallipoli - I sold my set years ago so can't remember if it is vol 1 or vol 2.
quote:I'm having a hard time seeing how this is or should be relevant, unless one thinks all women leaders somehow have leadership traits not shared by males, or lack leadership traits shared by males. ISTM she should be compared to other leaders, male or female, governing under (roughly) similar conditions. She is not running as a representative of her sex.
Originally posted by HCH:
Something one might expect in the election campaign would be a discussion of female national leaders such as Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi (and others). How does Hilary Clinton fit in among them? Notice that some of them definitely have detractors as well as admirers.
quote:Although it can affect pole vaulters.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, we never have earnest discussions about how the penises of prime ministers and presidents has an impact upon their governance.
quote:And Churchill can be faulted for exercising the powers Australia gave him in WWII how?
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:As opposed to which, Menzies announcement was that the UK was at war and that "therefore Australia is also at war". Now that was Menzies, but his comments represented the views of many Australians at the time, and the general theory, clearly misunderstood, of the unity of the Crown. Why did not Australia not adopt the Statute of Westminster earlier? A range of reasons, one being a strong sentimental attachment to the UK - still called the Old Country and home by many. Then, the Australian population in 1939 was still under 7 million, while the Canadian was probably over 11 million by then; a small country with no large and generally friendly neighbours to speak of.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Curtin only did what he did because Australia couldn't get it together about the Statute of Westminster, you (Australia) expressly gave Churchill the power to direct Australian forces by not adopting the Statute of Westminster in 1931. That has nothing to do with the Dominions and everything to do with Australian politics.
Churchill never even tried to direct Canadian forces as he hadn't a leg to stand on; we had adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the question was long-settled. Canada's declaration of war was a few days later than Britain's because Mackenzie-King wanted to make that exact point.
Mousethief, start with the Official History of WW I under Bean's general editorship. For an official history, the criticism of Churchill is totally unexpected. Then read Serle's biography of Monash, and from there to works such as Jeffrey Grey's work on the war with Turkey. If you want something pretty easy to read, Les Carlyon's book is recent and non-academic.
Don't forget that Australia had recorded victories over Germany in the Pacific, with the capture of all German territory there by the end of September 1914.
quote:If this were fencing, that would be a definite hit. Nice one Romanlion.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So he was a democrat?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Rubbish. He was derided in his day for his attitudes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is idle to complain that Churchill was a racist. You might as well accuse him of not having a Twitter account.
quote:An addition: While waggling hand on pate, repeatedly attempt to turn on one foot, and fall over.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm finally working out my impression of Trump, viz.
Look at audience, place right hand on pate, wiggle hand up and down.
quote:If people didn't hold their noses when voting how many would vote?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, in a valiant but perhaps doomed attempt to turn the thread back to the upcoming U.S. Presidential election:
The latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton makes it harder and harder to justify voting for her. Not that there is any viable alternative (sigh).
quote:Well, that seems vaguely familiar.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, in a valiant but perhaps doomed attempt to turn the thread back to the upcoming U.S. Presidential election:
The latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton makes it harder and harder to justify voting for her. Not that there is any viable alternative (sigh).
quote:Pretty much what I thought. You'd almost think that because Trump has almost killed himself as a credible candidate, AP were trying to find something to keep the competitive game alive. A dead cert presidential candidate doesn't have nearly as much media value as a close run thing.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Oh, here you go.
Vox rebuttal to the AP report here.
quote:Will someone not lock the bastard up? He is not content with damaging one country so he must do a road show?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yet another really good reason for not voting Trump. Not just for abstaining, but for voting for the only person, however much it might go against the grain, who can stop him.
quote:The media are reluctant to give up the ratings gained by feeding the beast. And now that he appears to be losing ground, they are desperate to keep him alive.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Oh, here you go.
Vox rebuttal to the AP report here.
quote:To paraphrase Captain Renault: I am shocked, shocked to find politics going on here.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, in a valiant but perhaps doomed attempt to turn the thread back to the upcoming U.S. Presidential election:
The latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton makes it harder and harder to justify voting for her. Not that there is any viable alternative (sigh).
quote:Certainly scary for Hillary!
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Oh now that's a scary thought, Off Centre View!
quote:Speaking as someone who voted in that election I can attest this is waaaayyyyy different. The level of craziness this time around is significantly higher. I voted "no" on the recall and voted for Arnold because he looked like the most sane option. He actually turned out to be a decent governor. He served as a check on our legislative branch and his appointment for the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles significantly improved services there.
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I wonder how many people will end up voting for Trump for similar reasons they voted for Ahnold to be California Governor simply for the novelty of it all?
quote:?
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I wonder how many people will end up voting for Trump for similar reasons they voted for Ahnold to be California Governor simply for the novelty of it all?
quote:Yeah? Look up his record on education.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Speaking as someone who voted in that election I can attest this is waaaayyyyy different. The level of craziness this time around is significantly higher. I voted "no" on the recall and voted for Arnold because he looked like the most sane option. He actually turned out to be a decent governor. He served as a check on our legislative branch and his appointment for the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles significantly improved services there.
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I wonder how many people will end up voting for Trump for similar reasons they voted for Ahnold to be California Governor simply for the novelty of it all?
quote:Apologies
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
We take an extremely dim view of unilateral swipes at an entire country by the inhabitant of another country. Desist.
/hosting
Opinions vary on that. He did some good things (IIRC, his daughter convinced him to do something for animals) and he was entertaining. But, overall, meh and blech.
quote:The thing is, a careful read of the thread would probably tell you that the hand thing is just a shorthand for (1.) how worryingly paranoid Trump seems to be* and (2.) how anti-trumpeters are more than happy to express their contempt for him by ridiculing his areas of over sensitivity. To correct Freud, sometimes tiny little hands are not just tiny little hands.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Apologies
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
We take an extremely dim view of unilateral swipes at an entire country by the inhabitant of another country. Desist.
/hosting
The wording was off.
More accurate wording would have been
Weird election going on when there is poverty like (insert example here) and the discussion is about one aspect of a major candidate's physique - something that could be said of many an election around the world actually.
quote:I am a preschool teacher, working in places that rely on state funds. ( Funding cut for Title IX programs.)I was scraping together my AA in community college while Arnie was doing his thing. (Tuition raised three times, from $20/ unit to $60/ unit, in one year.)Though we never met in person, he legislatively got straight in my face in spirit.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the election that gave us Arnold as CA governor:
And those other candidates were a motley crew, indeed. Emerged from the woodwork, fringes, and possibly sci-fi.
However, the voter's pamphlet made for an interesting read!
Oh, and Prester John (?) said Arnold was a good governor.
quote:I said he was decent. He was far more competent compared to his predecessor, who should have been prepared for the energy crisis. That's not just me seeing things through partisan tinged glasses. PBS, not exactly a right-wing media bastion, did a Frontline special that called that out.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the election that gave us Arnold as CA governor:
And those other candidates were a motley crew, indeed. Emerged from the woodwork, fringes, and possibly sci-fi.
However, the voter's pamphlet made for an interesting read!
Oh, and Prester John (?) said Arnold was a good governor.
I'm just glad that the move to get the Constitution changed so he could be president didn't work.
quote:For America as well, and probably for Europe. For everyone except Putin and ISIS.
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
quote:Certainly scary for Hillary!
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Oh now that's a scary thought, Off Centre View!
quote:Ok - as this is Purgatory, why do you believe that?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:For America as well, and probably for Europe. For everyone except Putin and ISIS.
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
quote:Certainly scary for Hillary!
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Oh now that's a scary thought, Off Centre View!
quote:Trump is clueless. He is easily manipulated by stroking his ego. He has the attention span of a gnat with ADHD. He says whatever will give him a reaction, with no though of the larger picture. Even when he tries he cannot manage to control himself within the frame of one speech. He doe not have a grasp of how his own country's administrative system works, so how can one expect him to understand international relations?
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
Ok - as this is Purgatory, why do you believe that?
quote:I believe ours is still in play, although I haven't had the courage to look. I do appreciate the NYC parks dept. sense of humor about the whole thing-- as well as their concern for the public well being.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I believe all the statues are gone. But hey, drop me a line when you're in New York and maybe we can do coffee or something.
quote:But Golden Key is wondering what would happen if he quit before the election. That seems less likely as we get closer to Election Day, but nothing would surprise me at this point.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah we discussed that at length but it was pages ago. Short answer is it depends on when h resigns-- before or after the electoral college meets and/or before or after inauguration.
quote:And here is Fred Clark's insightful analysis of that essay's most glaring omission.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am not sure this is the best place for it, but here is an article bemoaning the loss of Christian intellectuals to help address political issues.
quote:The whole thing is worth a read, and it's shorter than Jacobs' original article.
But [Reverend Martin Luther] King[, Jr.] was not a “Watchman” — a detached observer and commentator ruminating on the state of American culture from somewhere off to one side. He stood in pulpits and he marched in the streets. He was arrested 30 times. This isn’t what we expect our “intellectuals” to look like. They’re supposed to be bookish, middle-aged, tenured professors best known for writing long, admired books and articles in prestige journals. I mean, that’s what intellectuals do, right? They publish long essays in Harper’s, not epistles scrawled on the margins of a newspaper and scraps of paper smuggled into a jail cell.
Jacobs thus concludes (or presumes) that King doesn’t fit the standard model of what a Christian public intellectual should be. An alternative conclusion might be that King’s life and legacy revealed the limits of that standard model to such an extent that it no longer seems like a necessary pursuit.
quote:But they'd probably do it with him on our side of the wall, and then insist that we pay for it!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if they built a wall preventing his leaving?
quote:Ah, thanks for the clarification, sorry for missing that.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:But Golden Key is wondering what would happen if he quit before the election. That seems less likely as we get closer to Election Day, but nothing would surprise me at this point.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah we discussed that at length but it was pages ago. Short answer is it depends on when h resigns-- before or after the electoral college meets and/or before or after inauguration.
quote:If they could be convinced to fence him in, I would be happy to cede over a bit of the Texan or California desert for that purpose, and chip in for the cost as well. It would do wonders for Mexican-American relations.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:But they'd probably do it with him on our side of the wall, and then insist that we pay for it!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if they built a wall preventing his leaving?
quote:ISTM, it ism much simpler.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And here is Fred Clark's insightful analysis of that essay's most glaring omission.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am not sure this is the best place for it, but here is an article bemoaning the loss of Christian intellectuals to help address political issues.
quote:I hope you're referring to Mexico -- please don't build a wall to keep him in Phoenix. I'm happily out of town and do not want him there when I get home!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I see Trump is off to Mexico today before his big speech in Phoenix tonight. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they built a wall preventing his leaving?
quote:Election interruptus?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So back to GK's question-- what DOES happen if he pulls out before the election?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Election interruptus?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So back to GK's question-- what DOES happen if he pulls out before the election?
We'll still be screwed...
quote:
Donald Trump has insisted Mexico will pay for a border wall "100%"
quote:If Trump told his supporters the sea was above the sky, would they simply cheer rapturously?
Hours earlier, he met Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto (...) The president later insisted he had told Mr Trump Mexico would not pay
quote:Yes. Especially those who go to his rallies. They are drunk with the attention.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So who's paying for this wall, again?quote:
Donald Trump has insisted Mexico will pay for a border wall "100%"quote:If Trump told his supporters the sea was above the sky, would they simply cheer rapturously?
Hours earlier, he met Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto (...) The president later insisted he had told Mr Trump Mexico would not pay
quote:Why bother? Trump has broken promises in the past; has denied he said what is recorded; or has reclassified what he said as a joke, etc., etc. When you have absolutely no integrity, it really doesn't matter whether you are recorded or not.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Always record what Trump promises! You will need that record. Everybody knows this!
quote:I wonder sometimes if the folks that go to his rallies aren't just the same folks just following him around.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Trump told his supporters the sea was above the sky, would they simply cheer rapturously?
quote:Well, but some of the lunatics are in charge of the asylum over here (BoJo for Foreign Secretary, anyone?), whereas there is still hope that sanity will prevail in the USA.
That's exactly how I feel when I view the Trump situation from this side of the pond. No matter how ludicrous the political situation becomes over here (Brexit; Boris; Labour bullying; Tory bullying; "traingate"), I just look across the water, shake my head and mutter, "Americanos!"
quote:Fair comment as rhetoric. Trump is so bad that it strikes me as not just foolishness but actually of the nature of sin, a moral iniquity, to vote for him, and I don't use phrases like that easily. But you are being too complementary towards both Boris and Farage. It's only about twice as less sane.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
... I just can't understand anybody taking Trump seriously. It's like electing Boris or Farage as Prime Minister, but a thousand times less sane. ...
quote:I'm not suggesting that we should "point and laugh at the Americans." I have no desire to point and laugh. Indeed, I have no ability to point and laugh; I'm far too busy being utterly bemused (and, frankly, rather frightened) at the mere prospect of Trump having any support at all. As I said, that alone is a prospect far less sane than anything that has actually happened here; I didn't mention (and would prefer not even to contemplate) the prospect of Trump actually being elected!
Originally posted by Jane R:
We're really not in a position to point and laugh at the Americans.
quote:My apologies, then: I misread your post.
I have no desire to point and laugh. Indeed, I have no ability to point and laugh; I'm far too busy being utterly bemused (and, frankly, rather frightened) at the mere prospect of Trump having any support at all.
quote:I'm very much afraid so and I don't understand his having support either. Even if I had believed in Farage's policies, I'd have been put off voting for them because they were espoused by him. I find it extraordinary that everybody isn't as appalled by these people as I am!
Originally posted by Jane R:
I agree Nigel Farrago is the British equivalent of Trump...
quote:Thanks for this, Jane. During an earlier part of the Brexit mess, a UK Shipmate said something to the effect that now she knows how it feels to be the country that everyone is fussing about, and that she'd remember it the next time something came up about the US.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Teekeey Misha:
We're really not in a position to point and laugh at the Americans.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Election interruptus?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So back to GK's question-- what DOES happen if he pulls out before the election?
We'll still be screwed...
quote:The concept of there ever being actual knowledge inside Trump's head is quite at odds with my experience of the man.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not to mention that he'll be walking around with an awful lot of classified knowledge in that puffed-up head of his.
quote:As opposed to his basement email server?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not to mention that he'll be walking around with an awful lot of classified knowledge in that puffed-up head of his.
quote:Distributed to him across 13 different devices, some of which are now "lost"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to his basement email server?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not to mention that he'll be walking around with an awful lot of classified knowledge in that puffed-up head of his.
quote:Don't worry, Trump won't know classified information from his current wife's credit card statement or the baseball scores.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Distributed to him across 13 different devices, some of which are now "lost"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to his basement email server?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not to mention that he'll be walking around with an awful lot of classified knowledge in that puffed-up head of his.
quote:Would you like to read Hillary's description of her own familiarity with classified markings?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Don't worry, Trump won't know classified information from his current wife's credit card statement or the baseball scores.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Distributed to him across 13 different devices, some of which are now "lost"?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to his basement email server?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[qb] Not to mention that he'll be walking around with an awful lot of classified knowledge in that puffed-up head of his.
quote:Then YDUI.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
AIUI, Hillary did the same as previous Secretaries of State.
quote:Or the Moscow Herald.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Like I said, if I were a CIA spook in charge of giving Trump intel, I would be oppressively tempted to make up shit just to see how quickly it would become front page of the Examiner.
quote:It is possible that you are ignorant of the distinct difference between Hillary's email practices and that of any other Secretary of State ever.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mrs Clinton's predecessor as Secretary of State, General Powell, seems to have suffered from the same proclivity as did she. If she is to be faulted, I fear that we must then seek to discipline thousands of senior officials and managers.
quote:Some of my usually Democrat Party friends are uncertain who is worse, Hillary or The Donald. It's not that they like anything about Trump or his party, it's that they fear she is worse. She comes across to some as liking to promote war.
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is either a hopeless moron, or something much worse.
quote:My point was that she seems to be a typical manager of her generation in her dealings with classified material. In my experience (while a minion, I had a very high security level), only staff aged over 60 or under 30 seem to be responsible users of classified information.
She is either a hopeless moron, or something much worse
quote:Typical manager?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My point was that she seems to be a typical manager of her generation in her dealings with classified material.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I believe ours is still in play, although I haven't had the courage to look. I do appreciate the NYC parks dept. sense of humor about the whole thing-- as well as their concern for the public well being.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I believe all the statues are gone. But hey, drop me a line when you're in New York and maybe we can do coffee or something.
So if you're really in the mood to see how Trump, er... sizes up... come visit us on the West coast.
quote:Well, better she be elected and she be doomed than Trump be elected and we all be doomed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Typical manager?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My point was that she seems to be a typical manager of her generation in her dealings with classified material.
She was the Secretary of State for Christ's sake, and would like to be President of the United States.
And you deflect reality by describing her as a typical manger of her generation?
Ringing endorsement that...
I believe that she is doomed, regardless of the November outcome. As I said pages ago, should she reach 1600 she will be politically D.O.A.
quote:Yep, a lot of us are up for that.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Sounds like a good idea to me.
quote:You do remember the guy she's running against, right?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Typical manager?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My point was that she seems to be a typical manager of her generation in her dealings with classified material.
She was the Secretary of State for Christ's sake, and would like to be President of the United States.
...
quote:Is Time a left wing (by American standards) magazine? I'd assumed it was centrist, which would make this article all the more significant.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A call for Trump's crushing defeat. Sounds like a good idea to me.
quote:Time has traditionally been considered to be slightly to the right of the American political center, while its rival Newsweek has typically been very slightly to the left of the American political center. Of course, newsweeklies are currently suffering significant pressure from new media, so these traditional distinctions don't always hold any more.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:Is Time a left wing (by American standards) magazine? I'd assumed it was centrist, which would make this article all the more significant.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A call for Trump's crushing defeat. Sounds like a good idea to me.
quote:And I think that anti-Trumpism is very much the centrist position in US politics right now, in contrast to say, anti-Reaganism in the 80s. Reagan himself was viewed as the mainstream(with the electoral results to prove it), so being against him positioned you on the left.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Time has traditionally been considered to be slightly to the right of the American political center, while its rival Newsweek has typically been very slightly to the left of the American political center. Of course, newsweeklies are currently suffering significant pressure from new media, so these traditional distinctions don't always hold any more.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:Is Time a left wing (by American standards) magazine? I'd assumed it was centrist, which would make this article all the more significant.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A call for Trump's crushing defeat. Sounds like a good idea to me.
quote:You mean the guy to whom the last dozens of pages of this thread has been almost exclusively devoted to ridiculing?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:You do remember the guy she's running against, right?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Typical manager?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My point was that she seems to be a typical manager of her generation in her dealings with classified material.
She was the Secretary of State for Christ's sake, and would like to be President of the United States.
...
quote:To paraphrase Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies, and polls.
Originally posted by romanlion:
How is it that a former Senator and Secretary of State with the full support of the democrat machine and a vagina is barely able to escape the margin of error (and slipping of late) against that guy?
quote:If it were just one coughing fit, it probably wouldn't be a story. But she has had multiple such episodes.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Seriously? Perfectly healthy people can have coughing fits every now and then. The human throat is stupidly designed. I cannot believe that "Hillary coughs" is even a story.
quote:Okay, here's a challenge for you. Talk, out loud, for eight hours a day, for a year, to a bazillion different germ-ridden people.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And what's all that coughing about?
Is she okay?
quote:I've heard and seen a lot more of Trump over the last months than Hillary. Powers of 10 more.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Okay, here's a challenge for you. Talk, out loud, for eight hours a day, for a year, to a bazillion different germ-ridden people.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And what's all that coughing about?
Is she okay?
I bet you pound to a penny you'll cough far more than you used to, even if you don't end up with major vocal chord damage.
It's hard enough on teachers, let alone politicians wanting to be president.
quote:Oh dear. Then bearing in mind Trump is clearly a sociopathic megalomaniac with an allergy to the truth, looks like there aren't any decent candidates for the Presidency of the USA?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:If it were just one coughing fit, it probably wouldn't be a story. But she has had multiple such episodes.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Seriously? Perfectly healthy people can have coughing fits every now and then. The human throat is stupidly designed. I cannot believe that "Hillary coughs" is even a story.
That, combined with her frequent falls and need for assistance walking up stairs, her sometimes bizarre behavior, her memory problems, and her closest adviser describing her as "often confused" makes it part of a larger health related pattern.
quote:This sort of thing isn't done to make a rational point, it's done to provide cover for the underlying idea. Fake Clinton medical records have become the new Kenyan birth certificate.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Romanlion I accept that you really, really don't like Mrs Clinton, but is it remotely rational to hold it against a candidate that they have a cough? Are you implying she has consumption?
quote:Germinated by Mark Penn and Hillary supporters during the 2008 primary.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole birther thing was...
quote:This doesn't surprise me. You do realise your tv has other channels than Fox, right?
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've heard and seen a lot more of Trump over the last months than Hillary. Powers of 10 more.
quote:This is the man too ill to join the military as a young man, but is suddenly in the very best of health in older age. Uh huh.
Just for kicks...Google "Trump coughing fit".
quote:IIRC if the prez is less than halfway through the term, then it counts as 4 years for the veep, and if the prez is more than halfway through the term, it doesn't count at all.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Well, if Clinton karks it in the Oval Office, Tim Caine can step in, and hopefully go one better than Gerry Ford.
Actually, if you step into the Presidency as vice-President, does the clock for your eight years start running straight away?
quote:Actually the Twenty-Second Amendment gives you (up to) ten years on the clock, not eight.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Well, if Clinton karks it in the Oval Office, Tim Caine can step in, and hopefully go one better than Gerry Ford.
Actually, if you step into the Presidency as vice-President, does the clock for your eight years start running straight away?
quote:So if theoretical-President Hillary Clinton dies on or after January 20, 2019 President Kaine could run for president twice on his own behalf. If she were to die before then he could only do so once.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
quote:I am sure that is true to pretty much the same extent that no one cares that Obama is black.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nobody cares that Hillary is a woman.
quote:Fox, CNN, MSLSD, it matters not. Your girl has been hiding from everyone. For months....
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This doesn't surprise me. You do realise your tv has other channels than Fox, right?
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've heard and seen a lot more of Trump over the last months than Hillary. Powers of 10 more.
quote:No one cares that Obama is (half) black, other than you and people like you who think that it is still 1985 and there is some weight to those accusations.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I am sure that is true to pretty much the same extent that no one cares that Obama is black.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nobody cares that Hillary is a woman.
quote:Umm...hiding through two election cycles...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Re no one caring that Obama's black:
Umm...where have *you* been hiding for the past 8 years or so?
quote:I'm pretty sure Golden Key's comment was not referring to the people who voted for Pres. Obama.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Umm...hiding through two election cycles...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Re no one caring that Obama's black:
Umm...where have *you* been hiding for the past 8 years or so?
Who do you think elected Barry? Black folks?
quote:As with most Trump operations, he's wasting other people's money.
Originally posted by RuthW:
On a different tack, here's why Trump is going to lose:
Trump's campaign is opening an office in my town. Seriously. I've been seeing Trump ads in the digital version of the LA Times -- including when I'm logged in as a subscriber -- and he's wasting money opening campaign offices here. California is a true blue state, has been for years, and there's no way Trump will even come close to winning here. The Republican party in California is moribund; they can't win state-wide offices, and the only question in the state legislature races is whether the Democrats will have a simple majority or a super majority, big enough to raise taxes. Long Beach is super Democratic and one of the most diverse cities in California, probably in the country, and we're getting a Trump campaign office. And it's going to be in Cambodia Town. At least half the signs on that part of Anaheim St are in Khmer.
Unbelievable. This is campaign malpractice.
quote:Who would you say elected Obama, romanlion?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Umm...hiding through two election cycles...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Re no one caring that Obama's black:
Umm...where have *you* been hiding for the past 8 years or so?
Who do you think elected Barry? Black folks?
quote:Yesterday Hillary Clinton spoke to crowds in Ohio and Illinois, plus taking questions from the press on the flight between the two. That's an awful lot of public exposure for someone who's been "hiding from everyone".
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Fox, CNN, MSLSD, it matters not. Your girl has been hiding from everyone. For months....
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This doesn't surprise me. You do realise your tv has other channels than Fox, right?
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've heard and seen a lot more of Trump over the last months than Hillary. Powers of 10 more.
quote:Thanks for taking such care to note the exact percentage of Obama's whiteness. Quite the courtesy for something no one cares about anymore.
Originally posted by romanlion:quote:No one cares that Obama is (half) black, other than you and people like you who think that it is still 1985 and there is some weight to those accusations.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I am sure that is true to pretty much the same extent that no one cares that Obama is black.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nobody cares that Hillary is a woman.
quote:November 14, 2015:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I didn't realize that the dims had their own Trump until tonight!
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
quote:December 19, 2015:
Originally posted by romanlion:
So who do you like?
Old and white? Or....
Wait, that's the only option....
quote:January 15, 2016:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Could have been that they knew that it would be dull, and predictable, and old, and white, and uninspiring, and that nobody would watch anyway...
quote:February 3, 2016:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The old white one...the only one they've got.
quote:That's an awful lot of race-baiting for someone who claims no one cares about race any more.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well one thing is clear...
If old, white, and entrenched is what you are looking for, the dims are your party.
The GOP top 4 is comprised of two Hispanics, a black guy, and white guy.
Too bad they're all racists...
quote:Correct. A lot of people were totally freaked out that someone as different as Barack, as dark-skinned as Barack, could get anywhere near the presidency. IMHO, some of that was conscious, self-aware racism; some was purposeful manipulation of voters' fears; and some was a knee-jerk, itchy reaction to someone who was so different from who certain voters were and from their expectations of a US president. IMHO, most of that last group didn't really have an explanation, which left them wide open to Birtherism, hoax memes, and all those stupid "Ra ra, USA! Let's keep the US the same Christian, God-fearing country it was when the Founding Fathers were around, it's our manifest destiny" e-mails that went around.(Never mind that was over 200 years ago, and some of them weren't Christians.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I'm pretty sure Golden Key's comment was not referring to the people who voted for Pres. Obama.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Umm...hiding through two election cycles...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Re no one caring that Obama's black:
Umm...where have *you* been hiding for the past 8 years or so?
Who do you think elected Barry? Black folks?
quote:Where did I make such a claim?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's an awful lot of race-baiting for someone who claims no one cares about race any more.
quote:Literally, today.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Where did I make such a claim?
quote:Perhaps we should start a support group in All Saints for folk with short-term memory problems. It must make forming a coherent, cohesive argument almost impossible.
No one cares that Obama is (half) black
quote:Selective editing doesn't change what I actually said.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Literally, today.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Where did I make such a claim?
quote:Perhaps we should start a support group in All Saints for folk with short-term memory problems. It must make forming a coherent, cohesive argument almost impossible.
No one cares that Obama is (half) black
Oh, look.
quote:Are you admitting that those who vote Democrats are actually people? Good Lord.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Selective editing doesn't change what I actually said.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Although Obama's blackness, and Hillary's X chromosome, will be used overtly or covertly to traduce them until the heat death of the universe, it's not actually why they are getting stick.
Any Democratic candidate would've had something, anything, grubbed up from somewhere, or failing that created from whole cloth, to blame them for. Biden would've been too old or goofy; Cuomo agh! Italian! probably Mafia; Nancy Pelosi an arugula-eater from California, ew! And she colors her hair. Jesus Himself could descend on a shining cloud in His glory to accept the Dem nomination, and the howl would go up about a Jewish president and what is this, about being seated at the right hand of the Father? Does that mean He's in the thrall of a foreign power?
It is important to rebut these things, of course. (The accusations that Hillary is a lesbian. So? Who cares? She is an adult woman, her sex life is her own business.) But it is also important to note that they are a distraction.
quote:Yes, an excellent article, that highlights the point I was making above-- that for the right, it is no longer about any particular principle or set of principles, it's about
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is an article (from the Atlantic, so no paywall) which points out what contortions supporting Trump drives one to.
quote:
“We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle,” he explained in defense of himself. “And that it is the greater principle.”
quote:Somehow the Kenyan Usurper must have gotten to him! This may make for some strained silences on the campaign jet.
Mike Pence:
I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I accept his birthplace.
quote:Wow!--re both the endorsement and the great article!
Originally posted by Callan:
Meanwhile, the local rag in Dallas, Texas, which last came out for a Democrat when Roosevelt the younger was a thang, declares for ... (A clue: she has much better hair).
quote:Reading the comments its interesting how many people talk about how bad Clinton is but do not address at all the perceptions of Trump.
Originally posted by Callan:
Meanwhile, the local rag in Dallas, Texas, which last came out for a Democrat when Roosevelt the younger was a thang, declares for ... (A clue: she has much better hair).
quote:So unlike the observable behavio(u)r of the Tiny-Fingered-One...
See Trump on women's periods, makes them dodgy and skittish.
quote:Interesting follow-up on this point today:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It is possible that you are ignorant of the distinct difference between Hillary's email practices and that of any other Secretary of State ever.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mrs Clinton's predecessor as Secretary of State, General Powell, seems to have suffered from the same proclivity as did she. If she is to be faulted, I fear that we must then seek to discipline thousands of senior officials and managers.
It is also possible that it is willful.
Powell used a commercial email for personal and non-classified business, and a single terminal at State for all classified communications.
Hillary maintained a private unsecured server in her home from which she conducted all of her personal and State Department business.
Accessing said server from 13 different mobile devices on networks all around the world.
quote:That's from an e-mail Colin Powell sent Hillary Clinton. He then goes on to detail the numerous ways he found it useful to skirt or evade security while Secretary of State, like "not saying much and not using systems that captured the data".
I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.
quote:Then there's Trump's recent comment to the effect of "She doesn't look very presidential, does she, fellas?" He was specifically addressing men...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saw a film on the news last night (BBC), saying how unpopular Clinton is with white men. Then they interviewed a few, saying she was untrustworthy, and so on, but what came whizzing through the screen to me, was raw naked misogyny. Of course, they didn't say, we don't want a woman, but it kind of shone through. See Trump on women's periods, makes them dodgy and skittish.
quote:Romanlion, I note that you've posted several times since I asked you the questions above, but you haven't responded to them or answered them.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Romanlion I accept that you really, really don't like Mrs Clinton, but is it remotely rational to hold it against a candidate that they have a cough? Are you implying she has consumption?
Theresa May is diabetic. This is widely and generally known. There are a lot of things those that dislike her, her party or her policies may hold against her, but that has not been an issue. I think most people would regard it as offensive to suggest that it should be.
quote:Especially since Roosevelt coped with polio and Kennedy with Addison's disease. Not to mention George Washington with wooden teeth.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure Hilary can cope with a cough.
quote:Yes, let's not mention George Washington's wooden teeth because that's actually an urban (colonial?) legend. So while it's true that Washington suffered from a good deal of oral discomfort due to his missing teeth and the rather primitive dental options available in the late eighteenth century, none of it was due to wooden dentures.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Especially since Roosevelt coped with polio and Kennedy with Addison's disease. Not to mention George Washington with wooden teeth.
quote:Particularly since the letter from his doctor stated that all test results were positive. Apparently he tested positive for too many diseases to even count.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Since the Blowhard won't release his health report let alone his tax returns, we can only speculate about what debilitating diseases (among other things) he may be suffering from.
quote:I'll leave George's "wooden teeth" to the side, but did it not occur to you that one reason there is interest in a candidate's health is the fact that both of these men went to considerable effort to conceal their health problems from the public?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Especially since Roosevelt coped with polio and Kennedy with Addison's disease. Not to mention George Washington with wooden teeth.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure Hilary can cope with a cough.
quote:And yet both men are considered exemplary presidents. Which suggests that our concerns about a candidate's physical health may be misplaced.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I'll leave George's "wooden teeth" to the side, but did it not occur to you that one reason there is interest in a candidate's health is the fact that both of these men went to considerable effort to conceal their health problems from the public?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Especially since Roosevelt coped with polio and Kennedy with Addison's disease. Not to mention George Washington with wooden teeth.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure Hilary can cope with a cough.
quote:Speak for yourself.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And yet both men are considered exemplary presidents.
quote:Scaremongering??? So far we've been promised that a Trump defeat will mean:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Tiny Fingered Wonder says that unless he is elected Republicans will never win another election again.
At some point, which alas is not now, this insistent scaremongering is going to pall. Where, I ask you, are those prison camps in the parking lots of Wal-Mart? Where is that long-delayed Muslim caliphate? I look in vain, for the imposition of Sharia law by Obama the Sekrit Muslim. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
quote:syphilis of the fingers.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Especially since Roosevelt coped with polio and Kennedy with Addison's disease. Not to mention George Washington with wooden teeth.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure Hilary can cope with a cough.
Since the Blowhard won't release his health report let alone his tax returns, we can only speculate about what debilitating diseases (among other things) he may be suffering from.
quote:To me it sounds like an insult. You festoon!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
festooned sounds like a word you should not google at work for fear of being reprimanded.
quote:Half of Trump's supporters equals considerably less than 47% of the American public, fortunately.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary calls 30+ million Americans deplorable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and islamophobes...
Wow.
Half of Trump's supporters?
That's more than 47%, right?
quote:You're right, romanlion - 30 million does seem low.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary calls 30+ million Americans deplorable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and islamophobes...
Wow.
Half of Trump's supporters?
That's more than 47%, right?
quote:From what I've seen since 23rd June it's on the low side for the UK.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You're right, romanlion - 30 million does seem low.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary calls 30+ million Americans deplorable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and islamophobes...
Wow.
Half of Trump's supporters?
That's more than 47%, right?
quote:Cue conspiracy theory that it was all a dodge to keep her away from the ceremony where her subversive involvement with the tragedy 15 years ago will finally be revealed... Expect this "startling revelation" in 10 - 9 - 8 ...
Originally posted by romanlion:
Now Hillary has had an unexpected early departure from a 9/11 remembrance ceremony with what a law enforcement witness described as an "obvious medical episode".
No coughing though, so that's good...
quote:Why should he?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...why won't GrampaLoompa get an independent physical?
quote:Last I heard he offered to release them immediately if The Beast released her 30,000 "missing" emails.
Originally posted by Huia:
Romanlion, you neglected to answer why he doesn't make his tax returns public.
Huia
quote:Yeah, and he'll get a complete physical if the cow jumps over the moon.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Last I heard he offered to release them immediately if The Beast released her 30,000 "missing" emails.
quote:So the campaign lied to conceal her health problems, hoping there wasn't video no doubt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Your CNN link now says that Hillary has pneumonia. She was diagnosed on Friday, and told the usual meds and rest advice.
Nothing more sinister than opportunistic germs.
quote:It also isn't a requirement. Frankly I hope he doesn't.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Releasing tax returns isn't a concession that one candidate makes to another.
quote:Have you never had walking pneumonia? Shoot, when I was in college, living in a dorm with 100 or so other college students, staying up too late, I used to get it nearly every year around exam time.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So the campaign lied to conceal her health problems, hoping there wasn't video no doubt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Your CNN link now says that Hillary has pneumonia. She was diagnosed on Friday, and told the usual meds and rest advice.
Nothing more sinister than opportunistic germs.
Excellent.
She obviously can't hang. Someone who cares about her should suggest to her that she take a break and get herself well.
quote:There are currently voters who neither support nor oppose Trump; undecided voters might be encouraged to know that he's an upstanding citizen who pays his fair share of taxes and gives generously to charity, and reassured to see evidence that he's as successful as he says he is. So that's something to be gained.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It also isn't a requirement. Frankly I hope he doesn't.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Releasing tax returns isn't a concession that one candidate makes to another.
No voter currently supporting Trump will change their mind based on tax returns, and no never-Trumper will become a supporter based on their contents. There is absolutely nothing to gain from releasing them.
quote:Has Hillary had pneumonia for several years?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Have you never had walking pneumonia? Shoot, when I was in college, living in a dorm with 100 or so other college students, staying up too late, I used to get it nearly every year around exam time.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So the campaign lied to conceal her health problems, hoping there wasn't video no doubt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Your CNN link now says that Hillary has pneumonia. She was diagnosed on Friday, and told the usual meds and rest advice.
Nothing more sinister than opportunistic germs.
Excellent.
She obviously can't hang. Someone who cares about her should suggest to her that she take a break and get herself well.
As the WebMD article details, it is very easy to have walking pneumonia and not know it, because it is very mild, the symptoms not much different than those of a bad cold. And, as the article explains, most people with walking pneumonia are able to work and carry on with their regular activities, just as most of us do when we have a bad cold.
Your concern is touching, but it sounds like Hillary is just fine.
quote:How do you figure? If no new information about Trump could possibly sway minds, how could new information about Clinton do so?
Originally posted by romanlion:
She is not just fine, and today's collapse will not be dismissed with the belated revelation of a pneumonia diagnosis.
quote:Where did I say that?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If no new information about Trump could possibly sway minds, how could new information about Clinton do so?
quote:No. I'm a parent. I don't need a doctor to tell me my children have an issue. I can see the signs myself.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You are a medical doctor? More proficient in diagnosis-by-proxy than those doctors who were able to examine her in person?
quote:Again, your concern is touching. But she has been seen by a medical professional. See the link above to WebMD-- most people with walking pneumonia are able to continue working, going to school, and carrying on their normal activities. Even those with parents. As I did (with doctor's full knowledge & consent) when I had walking pneumonia in college. But feel free to send her a pint of chicken soup if it will make you feel better.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:No. I'm a parent. I don't need a doctor to tell me my children have an issue. I can see the signs myself.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You are a medical doctor? More proficient in diagnosis-by-proxy than those doctors who were able to examine her in person?
Hillary is clearly not in great health. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the fact. If she were my Mother or my children's Grandmother I would implore her to go lay down somewhere.
quote:Well Hillary is not most people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...most people with walking pneumonia are able to continue working, going to school, and carrying on their normal activities.
quote:The cough question? Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask about a persistent cough, particularly when combined with the various other issues Hillary has had.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Romanlion, would you like to answer the questions - which I've now put to you twice?
quote:Bit of a silly comparison, don't you think? The rigors of life as a princess don't exactly match those of being the most powerful elected person on the planet.
Originally posted by Enoch:
HRH Princess Anne has recently had to cancel a number of engagements because she wasn't feeling very well. Nobody has suggested this means that she should be removed from the Royal Family or is no longer suitable for her role.
quote:All of which is consistent with walking pneumonia. Cancel a few stops, get Bill to shmooze the donors (he's better at it anyway), get to bed a few hours earlier. Done.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Well Hillary is not most people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...most people with walking pneumonia are able to continue working, going to school, and carrying on their normal activities.
Hillary Clinton's doctor says the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed on Friday with pneumonia, put on antibiotics and advised to rest and modify her campaign schedule.
quote:Hope like hell you can make it two more months without another one of your frequent episodes.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:All of which is consistent with walking pneumonia. Cancel a few stops, get Bill to shmooze the donors (he's better at it anyway), get to bed a few hours earlier.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Well Hillary is not most people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...most people with walking pneumonia are able to continue working, going to school, and carrying on their normal activities.
Hillary Clinton's doctor says the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed on Friday with pneumonia, put on antibiotics and advised to rest and modify her campaign schedule.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Done.
quote:Really? Which group - Trump supporters or "never-Trumpers", as you call them - do you think would be likely to be swayed by this sort of thing? And how would that thought process go?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Where did I say that?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If no new information about Trump could possibly sway minds, how could new information about Clinton do so?
If Trump starts hacking through his rallies, requiring help to stand or climb stairs, falling, breaking bones or getting concussed, and collapsing on the street I think that would indeed sway minds.
quote:Oh, for the love of Pete! I'm older than she is, I had pneumonia, it was hell, but I recovered from it with the help of medication and am just fine now.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Pneumonia is serious, particularly for a woman her age.
quote:Although there were a few reminders of that time when 3000 people died and Trump thought an appropriate response was to tweet about how Trump towers was now the tallest bldg in lower Manhattan...
Originally posted by simontoad:
Today was a good day for Trump because he barely opened his mouth out of respect for the 9/11 Anniversary.
quote:Have you seen the video from this morning?
Originally posted by simontoad:
If you are with Hilary, I urge you to not respond to the issue about her health. It constitutes the Trump Campaign's attempts to take focus away from the real issue
quote:That would work for bacterial pneumonia but not for viral pneumonia.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If Hilary Clinton had not had the pneumonia inoculation I would say that her doctors have let her down. It is available here to older people, although I'm not sure of the recommended age.
quote:Trump on the other hand just reacts angrily to anything. That'll do America and the rest of the world a whole lot of good. He behaves like his haemorrhoids are acting up.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Have you seen the video from this morning?
Originally posted by simontoad:
If you are with Hilary, I urge you to not respond to the issue about her health. It constitutes the Trump Campaign's attempts to take focus away from the real issue
Are you suggesting that Trump somehow created that?
And not just this morning, but all the video of Hillary being held up? Busting her ass getting on the plane?
She has fallen and broken her elbow, requiring surgery.
She has fallen and been concussed, causing memory problems, double vision, and potentially fatal thrombosis.
She has spastic responses to sensory overload.
Her closest aide describes her to staff as "often confused".
Her supporters don't have to respond, but her campaign is now going to be forced to. This is not Breitbart, or InfoWars. Her health is now a legitimate, mainstream issue of serious concern.
quote:It doesn't bear thinking about!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I hope, for many reasons, that she gets well soon, takes care of herself, and hasn't developed any serious, long-term health problems.
The mess we'd have if she had to withdraw from the race...
quote:But an episode of pneumonia and feeling faint in the heat can't inform us regarding physical competence. Certainly no more than a broken elbow a number of years ago.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Physical competence has become more important in electability in just the same way as being telegenic has, alas.
quote:But the campaign's failure to disclose the diagnosis until a video had blown up in their faces does inform us about the established propensity of Mrs. Clinton to obscure the truth.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But an episode of pneumonia and feeling faint in the heat can't inform us regarding physical competence.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Physical competence has become more important in electability in just the same way as being telegenic has, alas.
quote:As was noted above, attempting to ignore the issue doesn't serve Hillary all that well.
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Can anyone really think that a broken elbow is a relevant health problem?
quote:Advanced disclosure of her diagnosis and a weekend of rest may have been the smarter play in hindsight. It was essentially a weekend paused from politics anyway.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Imagine the reaction if she'd stayed in bed, and skipped the 9/11 memorial...
quote:Regardless of appearances...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
She's tough.
quote:That's sure how it looks from where I'm sitting.
Originally posted by simontoad:
...Donald Trump is not fit to be President. This is not a heath issue, this is about his background, his business dealings, his friendship with enemies of the United States, his financial links to enemies of the United States, what he says, what he does and what he thinks.
quote:Some underlying health problem that has made her fall every few years. Sounds really serious.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The relevant health problem is her repeated falls.
quote:My elderly Grandmother had several falls resulting in injury in her last years with us, and it was very serious. One fall left her on the floor of her living room for nearly 36 hours before a wellness check was requested by my Mother.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Some underlying health problem that has made her fall every few years. Sounds really serious.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The relevant health problem is her repeated falls.
quote:Well put Teekeey Misha. That's how it looks in the rest of the world. But we don't have a vote in this election. We just suffer the consequences if those that do, choose to give that amount of power to a man who does not appear to have the character, personality or calibre to handle it.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:That's sure how it looks from where I'm sitting.
Originally posted by simontoad:
...Donald Trump is not fit to be President. This is not a heath issue, this is about his background, his business dealings, his friendship with enemies of the United States, his financial links to enemies of the United States, what he says, what he does and what he thinks.
"Hey! Hilary has a temporary ailment; much safer to vote the guy who's completely barking all the time ." It's an argument to which I can't imagine anybody subscribing.
quote:Do you suppose . . . is a great way to start gossip and conspiracy theories in the absence of facts. It's a tactic Trump uses. He often ends with I don't know . . . but he's already planted the conspiracy.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do you suppose Hillary is an alcoholic?
quote:From the NIH
Originally posted by mdijon:
I seriously don't think that a fall every few years is abnormal or a sign of alcoholism.
quote:I'd have thought Mars. No, wait, that is the red planet, where is an orange one?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I want to see his birth certificate. I do not believe he was born in the US. Probably Kenya.
quote:Here's a fact:
Originally posted by sabine:
Do you suppose . . . is a great way to start gossip and conspiracy theories in the absence of facts.
sabine
quote:Hey diddle-diddle...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Yeah, and he'll get a complete physical if the cow jumps over the moon.
quote:Some people do just fall from time to time. In the last 30-40 years I have had 6 falls, three of them with serious results: three fractured limbs. First an ankle, then my right wrist, then my left one. One was while walking in the mountains of Austria; one while walking in the Appalachians; the rest of my falls just walking along pavements at home.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:From the NIH
Originally posted by mdijon:
I seriously don't think that a fall every few years is abnormal or a sign of alcoholism.
First paragraph:
Falls don't "just happen," and people don't fall because they get older. Often, more than one underlying cause or risk factor is involved in a fall. A risk factor is something that increases a person's risk or susceptibility to a medical problem or disease.
quote:I'm quite sure Hillary's mountaineering days are long past. She's no Gary Johnson.
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:Some people do just fall from time to time. In the last 30-40 years I have had 6 falls, three of them with serious results: three fractured limbs. First an ankle, then my right wrist, then my left one. One was while walking in the mountains of Austria; one while walking in the Appalachians...
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:From the NIH
Originally posted by mdijon:
I seriously don't think that a fall every few years is abnormal or a sign of alcoholism.
First paragraph:
Falls don't "just happen," and people don't fall because they get older. Often, more than one underlying cause or risk factor is involved in a fall. A risk factor is something that increases a person's risk or susceptibility to a medical problem or disease.
quote:Which, according to the NIH would fall into the category of environmental risk factors. Hillary's flop onto the plane could have been in this category. Yesterday's incident clearly was in another...
Originally posted by Inger:
I just have a bad habit of tripping over things.
quote:He will be revealing the "results" on the Dr. Oz show. I'm not holding my breath for anything close to reality.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Hey diddle-diddle...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Yeah, and he'll get a complete physical if the cow jumps over the moon.
quote:That's out of context. The text is about not dismissing falls without investigation, not the literal belief that every fall means something. A few falls with years between them is not a sign of anything.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Falls don't "just happen," and people don't fall because they get older. Often, more than one underlying cause or risk factor is involved in a fall. A risk factor is something that increases a person's risk or susceptibility to a medical problem or disease.
quote:
One third of the elder population over the age of 65 falls each year.
quote:What context? It's the opening paragraph, the opening line of which is "Falls don't just happen".
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:That's out of context.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Falls don't "just happen," and people don't fall because they get older. Often, more than one underlying cause or risk factor is involved in a fall. A risk factor is something that increases a person's risk or susceptibility to a medical problem or disease.
quote:The example I cited was my alcoholic Grandmother. If my Grandmother had been epileptic or suffered from dementia, I would have used that for my question.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
One third of the elder population over the age of 65 falls each year.
I don't think they are all alcoholics. Now why would you think of that first?
quote:How exactly did you discern my "glee"?
Originally posted by mdijon:
And why so gleefully?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's out of context.
quote:How ironic. The context was what followed. Ironic because also in my post, the next sentence that you snipped explained how it was out of context.
Originally posted by romanlion:
What context?
quote:I'm sure they so. That's what stirring the pot re: conspiracy is intended to accomplish.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Here's a fact:
Originally posted by sabine:
Do you suppose . . . is a great way to start gossip and conspiracy theories in the absence of facts.
sabine
Gossip and conspiracy theories receive top billing on the websites of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Drudge, and Huffington Post this morning, among others.
quote:Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting Congressional representative. Constitutionally, the residents of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Two more election posters around DC when we went on a jaunt. The first was a joke candidate running with the slogan, "Make America Sane Again". The second was running I think for the DC Congressional seat - a Ms. Norton. My mind says Zoe Lodge-Norton, and fellow Australians will know where that comes from.
quote:Of course he was entitled. He was and is rich (and white) so he is therefore Entitled.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I very much second an investigation into whether Donald Trump was entitled to dodge the Vietnam draft with a sore on his poor FTSE. I want to know whether the sore became infected, and whether the infection poisoned his blood a little bit so that he suffers ongoing medical issues, such as lack of empathy and fragile ego syndrome.
What sort of bloke cheats his way out of going to war and then takes pot shots at those who served? Donald Trump does that. He is an irredeemable arsehole.
quote:And they have auto license plates to prove it (and to protest it).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting Congressional representative. Constitutionally, the residents of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
quote:I didn't know that. If it's true, it's weird. Is it because they're all assumed to be government employees, and do government employees elsewhere also have no vote?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Constitutionally, the residents of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
quote:The argument is pretty simple.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I didn't know that. If it's true, it's weird. Is it because they're all assumed to be government employees, and do government employees elsewhere also have no vote?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Constitutionally, the residents of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
quote:It's because of the way the district was created. Washington, and the district in which is resides, were created to be the US capital city. There wasn't anything there beforehand. The land was removed form the states of Maryland and Virginia, so that the capital city wouldn't be in anyone's state.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I didn't know that. If it's true, it's weird. Is it because they're all assumed to be government employees, and do government employees elsewhere also have no vote?
quote:Oh yes we have seen those all over DC. It is very odd. I'm glad Canberrans have a say. They are such whiners. Am I right in thinking that residents of Buckingham and associated royal palaces get no vote, while those spending their time in Westminster get too many?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:And they have auto license plates to prove it (and to protest it).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting Congressional representative. Constitutionally, the residents of the District of Columbia have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
quote:You know I think rich white kids bought their way out of service in the War of Independence too. We saw the HQ of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Maybe there should be one for Draft Dodgers of America too. Trump could be President of that if he wants...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Of course he was entitled. He was and is rich (and white) so he is therefore Entitled.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I very much second an investigation into whether Donald Trump was entitled to dodge the Vietnam draft with a sore on his poor FTSE. I want to know whether the sore became infected, and whether the infection poisoned his blood a little bit so that he suffers ongoing medical issues, such as lack of empathy and fragile ego syndrome.
What sort of bloke cheats his way out of going to war and then takes pot shots at those who served? Donald Trump does that. He is an irredeemable arsehole.
How dare you insinuate otherwise
quote:Clinton has stated that half of Trump's support comes from a "Basket of Deplorables". Something of a risky strategy to dismiss nearly a quarter of the American Electorate in one sentence, (even if she wins in November).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the NYTimes, op ed writer Charles Blow says:
"Donald Trump is a deplorable candidate — to put it charitably — and anyone who helps him advance his racial, religious and ethnic bigotry is part of that bigotry. Period. Anyone who elevates a sexist is part of that sexism. The same goes for xenophobia. You can’t conveniently separate yourself from the detestable part of him because you sense in him the promise of cultural or economic advantage. That hair cannot be split."
quote:It isn't a strategy, which is why it's so damaging. It is a sincerely held view of tens of millions of Americans from a tottering old elitist hag.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clinton has stated that half of Trump's support comes from a "Basket of Deplorables". Something of a risky strategy to dismiss nearly a quarter of the American Electorate in one sentence
quote:This is what has dems completely panicked. Should she be forced to withdraw and they put forward anyone but Bernie there will be an insurrection, and they will lose badly.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I wonder who will stand against Trump if Clinton's health doesn't improve in the coming weeks?
quote:You know I think you have no idea how one becomes eligible to join the Daughters of the American Revolution.
Originally posted by simontoad:
You know I think rich white kids bought their way out of service in the War of Independence too. We saw the HQ of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Maybe there should be one for Draft Dodgers of America too. Trump could be President of that if he wants...
quote:The Civil War, actually.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:You know I think rich white kids bought their way out of service in the War of Independence too. We saw the HQ of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Maybe there should be one for Draft Dodgers of America too. Trump could be President of that if he wants...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Of course he was entitled. He was and is rich (and white) so he is therefore Entitled.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I very much second an investigation into whether Donald Trump was entitled to dodge the Vietnam draft with a sore on his poor FTSE. I want to know whether the sore became infected, and whether the infection poisoned his blood a little bit so that he suffers ongoing medical issues, such as lack of empathy and fragile ego syndrome.
What sort of bloke cheats his way out of going to war and then takes pot shots at those who served? Donald Trump does that. He is an irredeemable arsehole.
How dare you insinuate otherwise
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do you suppose Hillary is an alcoholic?
quote:Whether any member of the Royal Family has the right to vote is debatable. The reality at present is that no member of the Royal Family is able to vote since none of them is on the Electoral Roll.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Am I right in thinking that residents of Buckingham and associated royal palaces get no vote, while those spending their time in Westminster get too many?
quote:Allegedly...
Originally posted by Twilight:
Do you suppose Hillary has a cat?
quote:Do you suppose she might have fallen over someone else's cat?
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do you suppose Hillary is an alcoholic?
I fell and broke my leg because I tripped over my cat.
Do you suppose Hillary has a cat?
quote:Yes, it's an election year that doesn't whip up much enthusiasm.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hillary continues to give us reasons not to vote for her. Clearly there is something about her health that she's not being completely straightforward about. I'm tired of the evasive answers.
Not that there's any other viable candidate, mind you. I'll still vote for her, reasons not to and all. The alternative is unthinkable.
quote:Unless I were compelled by the law to cast a vote, I would abstain.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion, if you could only vote for Trump or Hillary, on the pragmatic basis of choosing which would do the best job and avoiding the one who would be most dangerous, who would you pick? Thx.
quote:You wanna see something
Originally posted by Golden Key:
sabine--
LOL. Do you happen to have a link? Or at least remember where you saw it? Thx.
quote:It wouldn't take much googling to find out that pneumonia doesn't generally require isolation. Less time than speculating on what it would say about Clinton if isolation was required. I guess that would be less fun though.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Strange behavior for such a bright, competent and capable adult with a potentially contagious illness.
quote:Wow. And I thought we Brits were suckers for a conspiracy theory!
Originally posted by romanlion:
Isn't it odd that a 68 year old woman, known to have pneumonia, who has already ignored a doctor's advice and who collapses in mild weather is not taken directly to the hospital but instead taken to visit her daughter and young grandchildren?
For that matter that she would attend a large public gathering at all? Never mind for her own health, but for the health of others?
Strange behavior for such a bright, competent and capable adult with a potentially contagious illness.
Of course if her malady is known not to be contagious at all it makes a little more sense I suppose...
quote:Isn't that the entire premise of democratic elections?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Should she win, she will be dragged to the finish just like she was dragged into that van, under the power of others and completely off her feet.
quote:*Ten items or fewer, but I entirely agree with your point!
Originally posted by Callan:
At this rate someone is going to have to resign from high office for standing in the 10 items or less queue at the supermarket with eleven items in their basket.
quote:I have let down my constituents and my country, and my primary school teacher Miss Bryant and I resign immediately!
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:*Ten items or fewer, but I entirely agree with your point!
Originally posted by Callan:
At this rate someone is going to have to resign from high office for standing in the 10 items or less queue at the supermarket with eleven items in their basket.
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It isn't a strategy, which is why it's so damaging. It is a sincerely held view of tens of millions of Americans from everybody else in the world.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clinton has stated that half of Trump's support comes from a "Basket of Deplorables". Something of a risky strategy to dismiss nearly a quarter of the American Electorate in one sentence
quote:Obviously erroneous, but that's okay.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It isn't a strategy, which is why it's so damaging. It is a sincerely held view of tens of millions of Americans from everybody else in the world.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clinton has stated that half of Trump's support comes from a "Basket of Deplorables". Something of a risky strategy to dismiss nearly a quarter of the American Electorate in one sentence
quote:It's almost like you don't think what they'd actually do once in power matters at all.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary is every bit the arrogant, self-serving, elitist piece of shit that Trump is, only without the odd knack for mass appeal he has.
quote:I can see that it's reasonable to discuss whether and when it is more ethical to speak one's mind truthfully, or to be tactful. But in the aftermath of our referendum vote, that criticism of people who intend to vote for Trump does strike me as an entirely fair assessment, something that a person is entitled to say, and something that many people should be saying, even if Mrs Clinton might have been more discreet perhaps not quite so openly to be one of them.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clinton has stated that half of Trump's support comes from a "Basket of Deplorables". Something of a risky strategy to dismiss nearly a quarter of the American Electorate in one sentence, (even if she wins in November). ...
quote:Maybe it is a sin? Perhaps the prospect of selecting from two evils is God's way of saying, "Hey Brenda! We've got a multitude of evils standing here and I need y'all to get on in there and be the third way... MY way."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is not sin to pick the lesser of two evils.
quote:If it is, then it's because the estimate is on the low side.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Obviously erroneous
quote:You're right. This is really funny!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't see that the rest of us can emulate you, romanlion. We cannot all abstain. What was stated upthread is true -- somebody has to be president. It is not sin to pick the lesser of two evils. To abstain is simply to hand the choice off to other people and if that's what you want we'll be happy to do it for you.
And the vast conspiracy theories about Hillary's health would make Erich von Daniken proud. The incomparable Alexandra Petri (over at the WaPost, but this is worth a click) summarizes the current state of play, with links! It's hysterical.
quote:Of course not, because anyone from south of the Ohio River knows the correct term is All of y'all
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"
(Except of course, God would never say "y'all" because God is English, as eny fule kno.)[/i]"
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Of course not, because anyone from south of the Ohio River knows the correct term is All of y'all
quote:Then the title of this thread should be changed to F-Trump, to more accurately reflect it's purpose.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...anyone who spends all their time attacking Clinton while saying nothing about Trump is a de facto supporter of the latter...
quote:I have no intention to abstain. Last check there will be no less than 5 options on the ticket in my state, and of course you can all emulate and pick someone else. Options from the left are admittedly more limited, and also nuttier, but there are options.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't see that the rest of us can emulate you, romanlion. We cannot all abstain.
quote:They will do what they have always done, regardless of their associated consonant. Serve themselves, spend like their very lives depend on it, and do each others dirty work. The illusion that they are 2 separate parties with unique values and priorities is one of the greatest scams that ever was.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's almost like you don't think what they'd actually do once in power matters at all.
quote:Did it factor in the woman's 3 DVT's and Warfarin prescription?
Originally posted by Twilight:
Some online calculator I just used says a 68 year-old woman can expect to live 17 more years, while a 70 year-old man only has 13 years left. On average.
quote:So an otherwise healthy 68 year old woman and one with a history of DVT's who takes blood thinners have the same life expectancy?
Originally posted by mdijon:
The risk of serious complications on warfarin is less than 1% and its quite likely to prevent further DVTs. Not really a game changer.
quote:Fixed that for you. Not doing something isn't really an "effort".
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Then the title of this thread should be changed to F-Trump, to more accurately reflect it's purpose.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...anyone who spends all their time attacking Clinton while saying nothing about Trump is a de facto supporter of the latter...
Mine is a lonely [lack of] effort, but someone has to [not] do it.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The risk of serious complications on warfarin is less than 1% and its quite likely to prevent further DVTs. Not really a game changer.
quote:So "not a game changer" means "no difference"? Even greater news!
Originally posted by romanlion:
So an otherwise healthy 68 year old woman and one with a history of DVT's who takes blood thinners have the same life expectancy?
That's great news!
quote:It does seem to me that this election is giving a decided boost to "other" candidates. I certainly have heard more radio commercials for the Libertarians this year--and some of those are rather persuasive (especially the ones pointing out that the two-party system is not working).
Originally posted by romanlion:
I have no intention to abstain. Last check there will be no less than 5 options on the ticket in my state, and of course you can all emulate and pick someone else. Options from the left are admittedly more limited, and also nuttier, but there are options.
quote:I've moved away from Johnson myself, but not over anything so silly as Aleppo. If Obama had meant what he said years ago with regard to Assad, Aleppo would be a place nobody could identify.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My son was going to vote for Gary Johnson. He even has a magnet, to stick on his car, supporting him. Alas, Johnson has no idea who/where/what Aleppo is, and my sun gave up on him in disgust.
quote:We normally have up to 20 minor-party (or no-party) candidates in a presidential race. Maybe 1/4 of them from various Marxist parties; a chunk from the far right, a few from the far left, a goodly number (maybe 1/3 to 1/2) from the near left or near right, and one or two you just can't categorize.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am curious about other states. Is there a trend of more "other" party candidates running in your State than usual?
quote:Simples. This election we don't have any candidates that are worth silly hats, balloons and bunting. At least none that are actually in the running.
Originally posted by simontoad:
In the US, I dunno. Why the hell don't you put posters all over the shop? You are the people with the silly hats, the balloons and the bunting. Why do you leave it all at the conventions? I don't get it.
quote:Aleppo today makes one think about war, terrorism, murdered children, blocked aid and human rights abuses. I can't think of anything that could be called silly.
Originally posted by romanlion:
but not over anything so silly as Aleppo
quote:Why?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Mine is a lonely effort, but someone has to do it.
quote:One Party proposes policies that are demonstrably racist, xenophobic, islamophobic and sexist, while appearing to idolise Putin and admire his "strong leadership". The other does not. If you think that doesn't add up to a meaningful difference then I'm not sure what you think would.
quote:They will do what they have always done, regardless of their associated consonant. Serve themselves, spend like their very lives depend on it, and do each others dirty work. The illusion that they are 2 separate parties with unique values and priorities is one of the greatest scams that ever was.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's almost like you don't think what they'd actually do once in power matters at all.
quote:I'm pretty sure you mean "voters", not "electors". In U.S. presidential elections the electors are not the voters in the general electorate but rather the 538 people in the electoral college. Here's the thread from the last go-around on this topic back in 2012, which covers most of the gory details.
Originally posted by simontoad:
really? They leave it to the electors?
quote:A case of pneumonia no doubt.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you think that doesn't add up to a meaningful difference then I'm not sure what you think would.
quote:Fixed that for ya.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Mine is a lonely effort, but someone has to do it.
quote:One Party proposes policies that are demonstrably racist, xenophobic, islamophobic and sexist, while appearing to idolise Putin and admire his "strong leadership". The other...[actually institutes the policies and provides the "leadership" that have given us conditions like we see in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore and every other major metropolitan area in the country which they have exclusively controlled for decades. Crime, poverty, unemployment, etc.]
quote:They will do what they have always done, regardless of their associated consonant. Serve themselves, spend like their very lives depend on it, and do each others dirty work. The illusion that they are 2 separate parties with unique values and priorities is one of the greatest scams that ever was.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's almost like you don't think what they'd actually do once in power matters at all.
quote:Croesus, that's a linguistic difference, though one of which I was completely unaware until you pointed this out. The Electoral College is a constitutional oddity that as far as I know is restricted to the USA. In other Anglophone countries 'electors' and 'voters' are virtuously synonymous, just perhaps with a difference that electors are those entitled to vote and voters are those electors that actually do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm pretty sure you mean "voters", not "electors". In U.S. presidential elections the electors are not the voters in the general electorate but rather the 538 people in the electoral college. Here's the thread from the last go-around on this topic back in 2012, which covers most of the gory details.
Originally posted by simontoad:
really? They leave it to the electors?
quote:It's even more restricted than that, as it only applies to the election of the president (and vice-president). In every other American election, the voters and electors are as virtually (and possibly "virtuously") synonymous as in other democratic electoral systems.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Croesus, that's a linguistic difference, though one of which I was completely unaware until you pointed this out. The Electoral College is a constitutional oddity that as far as I know is restricted to the USA. In other Anglophone countries 'electors' and 'voters' are virtuously synonymous, just perhaps with a difference that electors are those entitled to vote and voters are those electors that actually do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm pretty sure you mean "voters", not "electors". In U.S. presidential elections the electors are not the voters in the general electorate but rather the 538 people in the electoral college. Here's the thread from the last go-around on this topic back in 2012, which covers most of the gory details.
Originally posted by simontoad:
really? They leave it to the electors?
quote:Thanks for that link. This paragraph in particular struck me:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Charles Pierce over at the Atlantic is one of the great political curmudgeons of our day, and \ this rant is excellent.
quote:
It is now popular to opine that, had the Democratic Party nominated someone else for president, then Donald Trump already would have been crushed as an electoral force. Watching the events of the last month leads me to the opposite conclusion. Had the Republican Party nominated someone more dedicated to the hard work of demagoguery, someone more committed to the craft of being a dictator, instead of the scatterbrained dilettante currently campaigning as a performance piece, that candidate would be even money to defeat anyone the Democrats put up in opposition.
quote:Newberry is indeed a great place. 70 miles from my home and yes, decidedly (R).
Originally posted by simontoad:
Newberry SC, you are my kind of town, well, except for your flavor of politics...
quote:But to whom? one might ask...
Originally posted by simontoad:
Political Billboard of the Trip: Outside Charleston, Hillary and Trump beaming down at motorists. "Moving to Canada? Let us sell your home."
quote:Of course, that was before an escapee from Ringling Bros. decided to put his hat in the ring.
Originally posted by romanlion:
"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy,not [sic] transformational, with a husband still d**king bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."
Colin Powell on Hillary - 2014
quote:Is that from the New York Post? (Per your NYP.) Do you have a link? I don't know if the quote is accurate. The NYP is tabloidish, AFAIK.
Originally posted by romanlion:
"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy,not [sic] transformational, with a husband still d**king bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."
Colin Powell on Hillary - 2014
quote:Isn't that exactly the dilemma? Trump is so appalling that whatever a person thinks of Mrs Clinton, their duty to their fellow citizens, the rest of humanity and God is to hold their nose and vote for her.
Originally posted by mdijon:
And of course what he said about Trump is much more bleak. It sounds like the choice between the one he would prefer not to have to vote for and the one he wouldn't vote for.
quote:Link
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:Is that from the New York Post? (Per your NYP.) Do you have a link? I don't know if the quote is accurate. The NYP is tabloidish, AFAIK.
Originally posted by romanlion:
"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy,not [sic] transformational, with a husband still d**king bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."
Colin Powell on Hillary - 2014
quote:And much less noteworthy...
Originally posted by mdijon:
And of course what he said about Trump is much more bleak.
quote:Not really. He's an Obama voter. Powell never really said anything about his other votes and it's likely that prior to Obama Powell voted for at least some Republican Presidential candidates.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Powell made is career mostly in republican administrations (those racists), but he's a democrat voter.
quote:Oh, I'm quite sure that's impossible. Clinton is the only person, ever, who mishandled emails. Certainly no one in a Republican administration would ever do something so vile!
Originally posted by romanlion:
It's a direct quote from Powell's leaked emails. The NYP reference is his.
quote:I believe that was right after she murdered Vince Foster, and just before she forged a birth certificate to cover up her secret Kenyan Muslim heritage. Probably died her hair too.
Originally posted by romanlion:
In an exchange with (mega) donor and Clinton supporter Jeffery Leeds in 2015, Leeds describes attending an event with Hillary where she could "barely climb the podium steps."
quote:Powell didn't mishandle anything, his personal emails were hacked and then leaked. As far as I know none of Powell's correspondence from the single machine he used at State for classified email have been hacked or leaked.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Oh, I'm quite sure that's impossible. Clinton is the only person, ever, who mishandled emails. Certainly no one in a Republican administration would ever do something so vile!
Originally posted by romanlion:
It's a direct quote from Powell's leaked emails. The NYP reference is his.
quote:What conspiracy theory do you imagine you see here?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I believe that was right after she murdered Vince Foster, and just before she forged a birth certificate to cover up her secret Kenyan Muslim heritage. Probably died her hair too.
Originally posted by romanlion:
In an exchange with (mega) donor and Clinton supporter Jeffery Leeds in 2015, Leeds describes attending an event with Hillary where she could "barely climb the podium steps."
Keep it up-- with every increasingly ludicrous conspiracy theory you're simply undermining the credibility of any more plausible problem.
quote:You've often got a bizarre reason for focusing on and speculating on some negative aspect applied to Clinton and dismissing the same or worse negative aspect that might be applied to Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And much less noteworthy...
Powell made is career mostly in republican administrations (those racists), but he's a democrat voter.
quote:It should be obvious, but I'll break it down for you.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You've often got a bizarre reason for focusing on and speculating on some negative aspect applied to Clinton and dismissing the same or worse negative aspect that might be applied to Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
And much less noteworthy...
Powell made is career mostly in republican administrations (those racists), but he's a democrat voter.
quote:I'm pretty sure claiming criticisms of Trump aren't newsworthy is what someone or other once called "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
Originally posted by romanlion:
It should be obvious, but I'll break it down for you.
It is less noteworthy that Powell criticizes a republican, especially this republican, because he has been slamming republicans for years. People expect it.
This cycle in particular his criticism of Trump is like a fart in a hurricane...
quote:Just McCain in 2008...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And Powell hasn't really been "slamming republicans for years", at least not in public.
quote:It worked for President Mitchell.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I particularly admire the idea of body doubles. There's a lot you can do with an army of lookalikes.
quote:Nixon also kept looking from side to side in a "shifty" manner. The main reason for this was that the clock was off to one side of the stage, so every time Nixon checked how much time he had left he did the shifty-eyed thing. Kennedy had a much firmer grasp of body language and always looked down at the podium before glancing at the clock.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Examples of the first televised debate debacles are when Nixon debated Kennedy. Nixon was the better prepared, but he did not wear makeup and looked ghastly.
quote:Should be compelling television to say the least.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am looking forward to the first Presidential Debate on September 26.
quote:I am not a fan of Clinton, but Americans have no other rational choice. Her problem is not that she is unqualified, that is imbecilic rhetoric of those fools who need velcro on their trainers because they cannot manage laces.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Trump is so appalling that whatever a person thinks of Mrs Clinton, their duty to their fellow citizens, the rest of humanity and God is to hold their nose and vote for her.
quote:You mean this to disparage Powell, but it actually emphasises the need to vote for Clinton. That hurricane of criticism of Trump is not for nothing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
This cycle in particular his criticism of Trump is like a fart in a hurricane...
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And Powell hasn't really been "slamming republicans for years", at least not in public.
quote:He criticized aspects of their campaigns but didn't call any of them anything like as strong as a national disgrace.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Just McCain in 2008...
Romney in 2012...
And the GOP in 2013...
Not to mention anything from 2016.
That's years, and pretty public...
quote:You about gave me a heart attack. I thought you had linked to a story saying Trump had dropped out of the race. I'd say our nightmare is far from over.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, thank God. Our long national nightmare is over. The Birther in Chief has thrown in the towel.
quote:I'm sure President Obama is sleeping much better, knowing that he doesn't face deportation on January 21.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, thank God. Our long national nightmare is over. The Birther in Chief has thrown in the towel.
quote:Obama is cool, assuring us that he kind of knew where he was born.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I'm sure President Obama is sleeping much better, knowing that he doesn't face deportation on January 21.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, thank God. Our long national nightmare is over. The Birther in Chief has thrown in the towel.
quote:That ploy kinda blew up on Hillary and her media.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, thank God. Our long national nightmare is over. The Birther in Chief has thrown in the towel.
quote:He could do it again tomorrow...no problem.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a report from a reporter who was there. It sounds like an egregious scam even for Trump, and I sense that the press is not going to suck up this kind of crap any more.
quote:Enough about Obama, he's just about outta here!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The headline here says it all: Never Wrong, Never Sorry, Never Responsible. These are both from the POST, btw.
quote:It has happened in the past where people, en masse, have been drawn towards a situation that lacks all credibility. Even individuals dubious about the thing to which they feel drawn are powerless to hold out against the pull of the crowd. It might be a form of mass hypnosis.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Trump finally denied the birthers. I have no idea how anyone's credibility could survive that. But I think his will among people who already like him. I think they will excuse his lies and say that Hilary is worse. I'm scared Trump might win. It will probably pass, but I am scared right now.
quote:Which is why I wish the upcoming debates were done without audiences. Nobody there to cheer or applaud. Just the candidates and the moderator and a TV camera.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe Trump is totally driven by audience response, and if they cheer he is willing to say anything.
quote:I don't like to speculate about things I don't understand, but the view from here seems to be the end of civil society, violence in the offing. Is it now despair, and hunker down, trying to stay out of the way of this maniac?
<That this election> is even close is something of a calamity, a victory for all that is dark and barbaric in the American character.... Are the roots of Trump to be found in the coarsening of the culture, the celebrification of everything, the degradation of knowledge or civility in the age of social media, when everyone with access to a computer thinks he knows all there is to know about anything?
quote:Logic and reason will not win this. If those things were a main factor, Trump would not have won the nomination, much less have good numbers right now.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But the audience may egg him on to say stupider and stupider things, which will put Hillary in a better and better light. Especially since she's a skilled lawyer who, I'm sure, knows how to cross-examine.
quote:I wonder where this fear comes from?
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I have some long time friends who are wildly in favor of Trump and hang on his every word and are so angry and I think afraid of "them" taking away their freedom and country that I simply do not want to be around them.
quote:These people clearly do not seem of low intelligence but do tend to be non college graduates who work in middle income jobs such as plumbers, mechanic, and shop keepers. They see themselves as very patriotic and raise the flag on high. Any meeting seems to start with a pledge to the flag. I retired to a rural area so we have farmers in the mix.
It must be a million times worse having Trump supporters as friends - I can't imagine it. Are they generally very low intelligence, if I may ask such a question?
quote:Although cross-examination is really the role of the moderator, who may or may not allow Hillary to ask questions and may or may not hold The Donald's feet to the fire to answer them. We've seen how very much of a difference it makes who the moderator is. (And of course, if the moderator doesn't bend over backwards to mollify Donald and put him in a good light, as we've seen, he's just go into one of his toddler temper tantrums and refuse to participate. That's sorta his thing).
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But the audience may egg him on to say stupider and stupider things, which will put Hillary in a better and better light. Especially since she's a skilled lawyer who, I'm sure, knows how to cross-examine.
quote:The shocking realization that being white and male no longer guarantees a spot at the front of the line. What's the world coming to when an uppity black man can become president and an intelligent, experienced, well-qualified woman dares to challenge an ignorant, unqualified, narcissistic white man?
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
I wonder where this fear comes from?...
quote:Yes, the more I read all this 'Clinton is ill and doddery' shit, the more I'm thinking misogyny, misogyny, misogyny. It reeks.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:The shocking realization that being white and male no longer guarantees a spot at the front of the line. What's the world coming to when an uppity black man can become president and an intelligent, experienced, well-qualified woman dares to challenge an ignorant, unqualified, narcissistic white man?
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
I wonder where this fear comes from?...
quote:Having seen this quote, I was reading down to post, and Soror answered for me.
Are they generally very low intelligence, if I may ask such a question?
quote:Andrew Coyne is an editorialist, not a reporter. He is a professional opinionator.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Canadian press has this from Andrew Coyne, a highly respected reporter, even if I don't generally like or agree with him: We Are Staring Into the Abyss of a Trump Presidency
quote:I don't like to speculate about things I don't understand, but the view from here seems to be the end of civil society, violence in the offing. Is it now despair, and hunker down, trying to stay out of the way of this maniac?
<That this election> is even close is something of a calamity, a victory for all that is dark and barbaric in the American character.... Are the roots of Trump to be found in the coarsening of the culture, the celebrification of everything, the degradation of knowledge or civility in the age of social media, when everyone with access to a computer thinks he knows all there is to know about anything?
quote:Some of the comments that follow are very scary.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Today's Doonesbury comic strip offers a wonderful -- and scary -- metaphor.
(After today this link will take you to whatever the current day's strip is.)
quote:That is an overly-simplistc view of this shituation.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:The shocking realization that being white and male no longer guarantees a spot at the front of the line. What's the world coming to when an uppity black man can become president and an intelligent, experienced, well-qualified woman dares to challenge an ignorant, unqualified, narcissistic white man?
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
I wonder where this fear comes from?...
quote:I spoke with one this morning, who holds a master's in psych and has worked with his mind all his life. He is a bit of a single issues man (abortion) which makes sense because he is RC. But more to the point, he has not read as widely the kind of shit that Trump is spouting, and was unaware of some of what he has said. And he has legitimate concerns about Hilary Clinton.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I felt the same way about friends who voted for Brexit. It must be a million times worse having Trump supporters as friends - I can't imagine it. Are they generally very low intelligence, if I may ask such a question?
quote:Except that kind of travel isn't easy for Americans. Unless you live along the Canadian or Mexican border, you're far away from another country. Americans generally don't get much paid vacation. (IIRC, we have the least of any country in the industrialized world.) Many people don't get *any* paid vacation. Travel is expensive; and, since we have farther to go than, say, someone from the UK going to the Continent, it's *really* expensive. Many people dream of travel, and save their whole lives to try to take one brief trip out of the country. And many people desperately want to go abroad, but have no way to do it, ever.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Travel would help them lose many of their fears, but I don't imagine they see any need to broaden their horizons.
quote:The fear is broadly cultural, promoted by the advertising industry (you need to buy the right stuff or your friends will reject you, and you need to buy the latest toys for your kids or they'll be social rejects), fear sells.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder where this fear comes from?
In a free and tolerant country like the USA it's very hard to see why some are in such fear.
quote:The authority granted individual States does not have a parallel in the UK. Not massively familiar with Australian governmental practice, but the States and territories have some autonomy from the federal government, so I would have though it somewhere between the UK and the US.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
How is the US more decentralized, please? Thanks.
quote:Those writing our constitution were strongly influenced by the US one. This means (in general terms and some inaccuracy) that specific powers are given to the Commonwealth and all others belong to the States. Canada is the sort of half-way house where the specific powers are given to the Provinces and everything else is that of the national government.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The authority granted individual States does not have a parallel in the UK. Not massively familiar with Australian governmental practice, but the States and territories have some autonomy from the federal government, so I would have though it somewhere between the UK and the US.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
How is the US more decentralized, please? Thanks.
quote:Following from my post above, State legislation only applies in the state both here and in the US.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thanks, both of you. I thought it might be states.
So does that mean that UK counties (?) and cities don't have much say over themselves? And the same with the different divisions of Australia? Can, say, Queensland pass its own laws that don't apply to New South Wales?
quote:
Many people dream of travel, and save their whole lives to try to take one brief trip out of the country. And many people desperately want to go abroad, but have no way to do it, ever.
quote:And here, and in the US, laws on the same topic may vary from State to State. It was only in 2006 that defamation law became uniform throughout the country - and that came about by agreement between the States and the Commonwealth. Similar agreements have led to uniform consumer credit and consumer protection laws. But even crimes acts vary and in the case of Queensland and Western Australia have a very different approach as well. I gather that there has not been the same trend to uniform legislation in the US; indeed from memory there are different methods of choosing the members of the Electoral College.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Thanks, Gee D. I was imagining that Aussie law might be something like the way you describe Canadian law. So, re my example, Queensland can pass its own law, without the national government's approval. I worded it clumsily before.
quote:That sounds just like our Brexiteers, which is why I'm so fearful that Trump, which any electorate with a collective moral compass would see fall like Icarus, could well win.
Originally cited by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That this election is even close is something of a calamity, a victory for all that is dark and barbaric in the American character.... Are the roots of Trump to be found in the coarsening of the culture, the celebrification of everything, the degradation of knowledge or civility in the age of social media, when everyone with access to a computer thinks he knows all there is to know about anything?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That sounds just like our Brexiteers, which is why I'm so fearful that Trump, which any electorate with a collective moral compass would see fall like Icarus, could well win.
Originally cited by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That this election is even close is something of a calamity, a victory for all that is dark and barbaric in the American character.... Are the roots of Trump to be found in the coarsening of the culture, the celebrification of everything, the degradation of knowledge or civility in the age of social media, when everyone with access to a computer thinks he knows all there is to know about anything?
quote:Local Councils (which may be counties, cities or metropolitan boroughs depending on population) do have autonomy in areas such as parks, rubbish collection, community centres, leisure centres, libraries and so forth. They also have a measure of control (subject to national government policy) over policing, healthcare, fire service, transport, housing and social services.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So does that mean that UK counties (?) and cities don't have much say over themselves?
quote:I've been on holiday to Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, but that doesn't mean I want the UK to be part of the Arab League.
Originally posted by Jane R:
She was *on holiday in Germany* when the vote happened, for God's sake (she had a postal vote) - how could she not want to stay in the EU?
quote:Two political murders. Remember Arek Joswik.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That sounds just like our Brexiteers, which is why I'm so fearful that Trump, which any electorate with a collective moral compass would see fall like Icarus, could well win.
Originally cited by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That this election is even close is something of a calamity, a victory for all that is dark and barbaric in the American character.... Are the roots of Trump to be found in the coarsening of the culture, the celebrification of everything, the degradation of knowledge or civility in the age of social media, when everyone with access to a computer thinks he knows all there is to know about anything?
At least though, Brexiteers don't have a constitutional right to bear arms - and even in our supposedly gun free culture that campaign produced a political murder. But obviously, that makes Trump and his supporters even more worrying.
quote:Well done Marvin, you just proved my point.
I've been on holiday to Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, but that doesn't mean I want the UK to be part of the Arab League.
quote:OK, I might be having a stupid moment - but I'm not seeing what your point was, let alone that Marvin proved it. Care to help me out by expanding on it a bit?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin:quote:Well done Marvin, you just proved my point.
I've been on holiday to Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, but that doesn't mean I want the UK to be part of the Arab League.
quote:But, hasn't it already been stated that "travel" is too broad a category including those who go somewhere that is just like the English sea-side but with warm weather and those who delve into the local culture and cuisine. Of course, I've no idea what sort of tourists your friends who went to Germany are, nor how Marvin spends his time overseas. So, that makes the anecdote pretty worthless to demonstrate anything. Plus, IIRC, Marvin voted to Remain ...
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, it was a lot simpler than that - I was trying to disprove Boogie's statement that travel broadens the mind and would automatically prevent people from wanting to vote for Brexit/Donald Trump...
quote:I don't recall such a survey. Though there is still a High Court case pending brought by a large group of ex-pats questioning the legitimacy of the referendum on the grounds that they were excluded from voting despite the significant impact the decision would have on them - presumably because they would have voted Remain if they had the chance.
I'm not even sure that living in another country does it, either. Wasn't there a poll of British expats which showed that they were split approximately 50/50 on the question of Brexit? Not that it really mattered, because they didn't get to vote. I'm not talking about Gibralter and the other overseas territories here - I'm thinking of the British pensioners who have bought retirement homes in Spain.
quote:It may also be simplistic to assume it can only be either/or; both/and is also a possibility.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Those people are definitely in the mix. But they are not the whole of the Benito Trump's supporters. ISTM, a great many are merely bandwagoners.
And the mainstream Republican party have done a bang up job instilling the politics of fear, and Trumpelstiltskin is capitalising on this.
There is also the legitimate frustration with the political status quo. ...
quote:Of course.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It may also be simplistic to assume it can only be either/or; both/and is also a possibility.
quote:This is not the status to whose quo I am referring. What I am speaking of the entrenchment of a political class who are focused on serving masters other than the public.
IMNSHO, that is exactly what they want. They're not frustrated with the status quo; they want to return to it. The status quo ante bellum - before feminism, before civil rights, before Roe v. Wade, before the 15th and 19th Amendments; heck, some would be thrilled to go back to before the Civil War.
quote:Of that I have no doubt. I just don't think even the non-deplorables have much of a clue about the politics they're so incensed about. My evidence for that is that they have been voting against their own interests, losing economic ground, and then putting the blame in the wrong place for the last 50 years.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...
So I am not defending them, not by a long shot.
quote:My opinion of the general electorate is about as low as it can be. People vote with far less reason and logic than they will generally admit.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Of that I have no doubt. I just don't think even the non-deplorables have much of a clue about the politics they're so incensed about. My evidence for that is that they have been voting against their own interests, losing economic ground, and then putting the blame in the wrong place for the last 50 years.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...
So I am not defending them, not by a long shot.
quote:Yes you can. I agree that travel doesn't inherently broaden one's horizons and, as many British expats prove,* one can live in another country and still be ignorant of it.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Really, if you stay in a place for a year or so, you will know bugger all about it no matter what you do. You can't properly understand a place that is not your home without... no, you just can't.
quote:I have just corrected the code for that link.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Boogie your link isn't working for me.
quote:Actually, that was Donald *Jr.*. Gets confusing!
Originally posted by Boogie:
Trump has now compared Syrian refugees to a packet of poisoned skittles.
I felt sick when I read it. Such lack of compassion is utterly obnoxious. Surely, surely this will wake the voters of the USA up?
quote:Trayvon Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement when he was shot.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
They're also what Trayvon Martin was carrying when George Zimmerman decided he was armed and dangerous and fatally shot him.
quote:And then there is Ezekiel 33:6...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Who was it was talking about welcoming the stranger? Oh yeah, that Jesus guy, in Matt. 25:35.
quote:Yeah, I probably pushed it too far. It's hot and sticky here in New Orleans. Damn hot and sticky, and I had to go to three places to get a decent coffee...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yes you can. I agree that travel doesn't inherently broaden one's horizons and, as many British expats prove,* one can live in another country and still be ignorant of it.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Really, if you stay in a place for a year or so, you will know bugger all about it no matter what you do. You can't properly understand a place that is not your home without... no, you just can't.
However, I dispute the assertion that one cannot understand a new place.
*And Americans in Baja California.
quote:Hot and sticky, I'll believe.
Originally posted by simontoad:
It's hot and sticky here in New Orleans. Damn hot and sticky, and I had to go to three places to get a decent coffee...
quote:Just don't drink the coffee mixed with chicory at Cafe Du Monde (along with deep-fried balls of dough).
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Hot and sticky, I'll believe.
Originally posted by simontoad:
It's hot and sticky here in New Orleans. Damn hot and sticky, and I had to go to three places to get a decent coffee...
But if you can't find a good cup of coffee in the hipster and foodie capital of the deep South, either you weren't trying, or you don't know one when you taste one.
Here's a little guide if you want one.
quote:Comparing certain ethnic groups to hidden poison within otherwise tasty treats is not a new idea, though I do have to give props for dusting off this old classic.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Skittles are candy. Trump Jr. tweeted: "If I had a bowl of Skittles and I told you three would kill you, would you take a handful?"
quote:Streicher wasn't limited to 140 characters at a time so he was able to develop this theme in greater depth than Trump, Jr.
“Look, Franz, human beings in this world are like the mushrooms in the forest. There are good mushrooms and there are good people. There are poisonous, bad mushrooms and there are bad people. And we have to be on our guard against bad people just as we have to be on guard against poisonous mushrooms. Do you understand that?”
<snip>
“However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison.”
“Like the poisonous mushroom!” says Franz.
“Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushroom can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk.”
quote:Those deep-fried balls of dough are heavenly. But I'm with you on the chicory coffee.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Just don't drink the coffee mixed with chicory at Cafe Du Monde (along with deep-fried balls of dough).
quote:Especially dipped in, or injected with, deep, dark chocolate.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Those deep-fried balls of dough are heavenly.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Just don't drink the coffee mixed with chicory at Cafe Du Monde (along with deep-fried balls of dough).
Have you never seen one of those big-ass percolator coffee urns at church??? quote:Do you think banquet halls or grand hotels -- of the sort that make meals for 200 guests at a time -- use giant percolators? Be interesting to know, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Serious question before leaving tangent: How in the hell does one make coffee for 200 people using a Keurig or Mr. Coffee thingy? I've never seen them larger than enough to deal with a small office.
quote:And they are doing it again. Trump can sink no lower, no more illogical, no more narcissistic and still he's getting votes. This isn't an ordinary election where both candidates try to appeal to the middle ground and need to show who has the better grasp of policy or managerial competence... one candidate appeals to populist anger, derision of elites and simplistic throw-away lines, the other, despite her weaknesses, stands for civilized public life.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Godwin, I know. But ordinary people supported Hitler.
quote:Um, why in the world do you assume he can't get any worse?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Trump can sink no lower, no more illogical, no more narcissistic and still he's getting votes.
quote:No, St Sanity uses plungers - very easy to make the coffee and to clean up after. Also easy to use 2 plungers for a small service and 4 or 5 for a larger one. Sorry, never heard of Keurig or Mr Coffee
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: okay, I see your reference to antiquated churches. And here was I proud that we were at least not like those instant coffee users, publicans and tax collectors that they are...
quote:Have you got a link for that, GK?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Former president George H.W. Bush (Dubya's dad) said he's voting for *Hillary*!
quote:Indeed. It's atrumpcalyptic.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Um, why in the world do you assume he can't get any worse?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Trump can sink no lower, no more illogical, no more narcissistic and still he's getting votes.
quote:.
They are both well educated Reagan Democrats
quote:Really? "As a foreigner" you can't understand why human beings aren't logical?
Originally posted by Enoch:
A very simple question. It's something as a foreigner I can't understand.
[snip]
Or, if one does not hold lying against one person, what is the logic in holding it against another?
quote:One of the things that surprised, when I lived near Melbourne for three years, is that "wog" was not considered an offensive word. Here in the UK I reckon it's on a level with "nigger", certainly I haven't heard either word for years. Oh, and over here it was used of people from the Indian subcontinent, mainly.
After a long long time the British felt that this wog coffee might have something to it.
quote:"Reagan Democrat" is a term used to describe the group of largely white traditionally Democratic voters who voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. It's generally considered the culmination of the Southern Strategy. Virtually all of the "Reagan Democrats" are now simply "Republicans".
Originally posted by The5thMary:
simontoad saidquote:.
They are both well educated Reagan Democrats
Uhh...Generally, Democrats did NOT support Reagan, who was a right wing Republican.
quote:Seriously? It is a human trait to believe/ignore things to our own perceived benefit.
Originally posted by Enoch:
A very simple question. It's something as a foreigner I can't understand.
Why do many Americans attack Mrs Clinton so much for lying when Mr Trump seems to have no relationship with the truth at all?
quote:A bit one-dimensional. In California there were a significant number of Reagan Democrats who voted for him for economic reasons. The Silicon Valley benefited greatly from the significant increase in military spending.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Reagan Democrat" is a term used to describe the group of largely white traditionally Democratic voters who voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. It's generally considered the culmination of the Southern Strategy. Virtually all of the "Reagan Democrats" are now simply "Republicans".
quote:With all the tacky souvenir stands and shops in Washington DC, you must be able to find some! I saw just about everything except toilet paper, promoting both candidates, when I visited last spring.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Good gracious, where! I want some!
quote:There have been lots of accusations flying around that Hillary uses a body double, especially after her dizzy spell and recovery last week. I certainly hope that the fifth illustration is a body double!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've seen it on Amazon. It may be on Ebay also.
quote:I don't get the distinction, can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I get why Trump toilet paper wouldn't be as potentially offensive as Obama toilet paper. I also suspect that most folks would give you an eye-roll for buying Bill Clinton toilet paper but question your motives if you bought Hillary Clinton toilet paper.
quote:I'll lay it out for you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I don't get the distinction, can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I get why Trump toilet paper wouldn't be as potentially offensive as Obama toilet paper. I also suspect that most folks would give you an eye-roll for buying Bill Clinton toilet paper but question your motives if you bought Hillary Clinton toilet paper.
IMO, anyone "offended" by the print on toilet paper is unprepared for life on Earth.
quote:Lot's of assumptions going on there, but thanks.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I'll lay it out for you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I don't get the distinction, can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I get why Trump toilet paper wouldn't be as potentially offensive as Obama toilet paper. I also suspect that most folks would give you an eye-roll for buying Bill Clinton toilet paper but question your motives if you bought Hillary Clinton toilet paper.
IMO, anyone "offended" by the print on toilet paper is unprepared for life on Earth.
Politician's face toilet paper is the ultimate in red-neck, plebeian, tastelessness. One assumes that that the purchaser of said product cannot find a better way to express their disagreement with a politician than to say [slack-jawed yokel voice]"hurp durp durp, I'll wipe my butt with his face! That 'otta show him!"[/slack-jawed yokel voice]. When a person of reasonable taste and discretion sees someone purchasing said toilet paper (or considering a purchase, or finding the humor in it in general), that person of reasonable taste assumes the worst of the purchaser.
So what is the worst you can assume of someone who has nothing better to say than "I'll wipe my butt with your face" to Obama? You assume he is racist. What is the worst you can assume of someone who says the same to Hillary Clinton? You assume he is sexist.
You have to be smart about criticizing politicians who are not white males. Because if you aren't smart, people assume the worst.
quote:I'm just the messenger.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Lot's of assumptions going on there, but thanks.
quote:No, it really doesn't...
Originally posted by simontoad:
Depends on the result....
quote:It certainly makes the case that Trump is a huge arsehole and unfit for office, but I'm not sure it says much about the Constitution, other than that the founders designed it to protect the Republic from arseholes, but they didn't think about giant arseholes.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The importance of character in selecting a candidate. This is from the POST but is worth a click -- it argues that we cannot rely upon the Constitution to protect us from the excesses of an elected tyrant.
quote:Thanks for that. Frankly, I wish I could put in my write in vote tomorrow and sleep through the next three months.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Which is why at rock-bottom, this election breaks my heart. I grew up watching American television, in more recent years I have had jobs where I spoke to Americans every day.
I may live in a country that took the other road in 1776, but many of the best policy ideas Canada has ever had were clear American imports.
And to see a country I respect and admire so much to degrade and debase itself with Trump is heartwrenching.
quote:Out of curiosity, do you mean mail-in absentee voting, or early voting at a central place? You don't have to answer.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Check in your jurisdiction. In mine, absentee voting starts in October. I always vote early, to avoid lines.
quote:I would have tried to keep a straight face (difficult when someone has hands and tools in your mouth) and ask why she/he disliked the Bureau of Land Management. Was it to do with the controversy of dealing with wild horses?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yesterday my usually temporate dental hygenist went on this weird antiBLM rant at me--
quote:Well, owning a pair of cowboy boots seems to be better qualifications for public office than Trump can manage.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
a local candidate for Senator that seems to claim that her principal qualification for office is that she owns a pair of cowboy boots.
quote:Interesting take.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I would have tried to keep a straight face (difficult when someone has hands and tools in your mouth) and ask why she/he disliked the Bureau of Land Management. Was it to do with the controversy of dealing with wild horses?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yesterday my usually temporate dental hygenist went on this weird antiBLM rant at me--
Then I would find a new dentist and let this one know why I'm leaving.
quote:I don't think we were so much giving advice as commiserating. My point was that I feel the same way too and wish it were all over already.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I was not really asking for advice-- or liquor suggestions, earlier-- or on what I should do with the switch on my TV--I was trying to describe a general state of weird snappishness and a background hum of panic I seem to be sensing a lot lately.
quote:So essentially the Bengazi hearings, but without the power disparity. She should do fine. Hillary Clinton has been dealing with obnoxious sexist assholes for the past quarter century.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I am not sure about Hilary.
Yes, she is more knowledgeable, more intelligent, understands the job she is auditioning for, will have real answers to the policy questions asked. etc.
But debates are not won by reality, but by perception. The Troompa Loompa plays by schoolyard taunt, and Hilary stooping to his level would be a fail.
I hope she can sail the line between the high road and the juvenile, prepubescent style of the Orange turd.
quote:Hey, give the old girl her due! She's been married to Bill for forty years!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hillary Clinton has been dealing with obnoxious sexist assholes for the past quarter century.
quote:Appreciated. But just to check in-- have y'all Yankmates* been noticing it, too? The stuff referenced in the article.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I don't think we were so much giving advice as commiserating. My point was that I feel the same way too and wish it were all over already.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I was not really asking for advice-- or liquor suggestions, earlier-- or on what I should do with the switch on my TV--I was trying to describe a general state of weird snappishness and a background hum of panic I seem to be sensing a lot lately.
And had the media not made such a big to-do about Diarrhea Mouth, he would have faded into oblivion long ago.
quote:The rest of the article is behind a paywall.
Our choice, Hillary Clinton, has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, while Donald Trump discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway.
We’re aiming to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton.
quote:Can Trump ride a horse?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, owning a pair of cowboy boots seems to be better qualifications for public office than Trump can manage.
quote:You do understand that Illary started this, right?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oy vey.
"Gennifer Flowers Says She Will Attend First Presidential Debate As Trump’s Guest" (HuffPost).
She's Bill Clinton's former mistress. First time Hillary ran, I thought it was very unfair that George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton speechwriter or press secretary (I forget), was one of the debate moderators.
This is far worse. I understand why Trump would do this, but why would GF bother after all this time???
quote:If, or when the 'trump sounds' many fear he may well make up one of the Four Horsemen .
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can Trump ride a horse?
quote:Which is good, because she's fundamentally unlikable. Her supporters don't even like her. She has all the warmth and charisma of your average reptile.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Romanlion, nobody's trying to persuade you to like Mrs Clinton.
quote:
We're trying to persuade you to vote for her because the alternative is so much worse
quote:She has no chance to win my state. Barry lost by 10 points and 200,000 votes in 2012. She won't even sniff that margin in November.
and the Maths are so tight that a thrown away vote is too great a risk.
quote:Remember this gem from the genius?
Originally posted by rolyn:
If trump and Putin like each other we can take a break from digging the fallout shelter after all, because the latter's going nowhere in a hurry.
Hey, get them to team up, end the ridiculous E/W proxy war that's been raging since 45, and maybe even bring Peace to the Middle East.
Who is to say our fear isn't shutting our minds to new possibilities.
quote:Well, drag a dollar bill through a trailer park...
This is far worse. I understand why Trump would do this, but why would GF bother after all this time???
quote:This is a classic example of how much more nimble and relevant Trump's tactics have been through this process.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Golden Key wrote:
quote:Well, drag a dollar bill through a trailer park...
This is far worse. I understand why Trump would do this, but why would GF bother after all this time???
(And you can read that either as a trashing of Ms. Flowers, or as an allusion to the Clinton camp's own descent into misogynistic class-ism during the 90s scandals.
quote:Yeah we're talking about making Bill Clinton the first "first gentleman" of the United States, so that concern falls just a little flat. Unless of course there is some evidence that Trump has had his penis in the mouth of a volunteer intern, then it's just a wash...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?
quote:Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
Originally posted by rolyn:
If trump and Putin like each other we can take a break from digging the fallout shelter after all, because the latter's going nowhere in a hurry.
Hey, get them to team up, end the ridiculous E/W proxy war that's been raging since 45, and maybe even bring Peace to the Middle East.
Who is to say our fear isn't shutting our minds to new possibilities.
quote:Well if Trump wins out First Lady will have actual pictures out there of those sort of parts.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Yeah we're talking about making Bill Clinton the first "first gentleman" of the United States, so that concern falls just a little flat. Unless of course there is some evidence that Trump has had his penis in the mouth of a volunteer intern, then it's just a wash...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?
quote:At this point, anyone who needs a summary to understand this also needs a carer and full-time placement in a home.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the NY Times:
A summary of why Trump should not be president.
quote:The key word being summary. It's like being asked to "describe all of Western history in 5 minutes". You'll need a summary of the top 5 most influential events in order to proceed.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:At this point, anyone who needs a summary to understand this also needs a carer and full-time placement in a home.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the NY Times:
A summary of why Trump should not be president.
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
quote:Just replace "Georgia" with "Syria", that'll work just fine...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
quote:Megalomania, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and mockery of those with disabilities or who have lost a son in war you pass over without a word, but someone getting a blowjob two decades ago is bad enough that even their spouse is considered a bad role model?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Yeah we're talking about making Bill Clinton the first "first gentleman" of the United States, so that concern falls just a little flat. Unless of course there is some evidence that Trump has had his penis in the mouth of a volunteer intern, then it's just a wash...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?
quote:She walked into an almost impossible situation.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
My preliminary observation is that I'm disappointed in Hillary's performance.
quote:Well, it's a bit like Trump's attempt today to paint Hillary as responsible for US policy since 1980. My fact checkers have been shot
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
quote:The Donald's sniffle issues came up after 10 minutes. But, hey....whatever people need to do to make themselves feel better.
Originally posted by romanlion:
No secret that I'm not an Illary fan, ....
...
quote:A stand against Russia in Syria?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Just replace "Georgia" with "Syria", that'll work just fine...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
quote:There are two more debates...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Pity the two of us didn't organize a debate-watching Shipmeet. We'd all be going on to bigger and better things by now.
quote:Oh, I'm sorry!!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A stand against Russia in Syria?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Just replace "Georgia" with "Syria", that'll work just fine...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that [qb]Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
I'd be damned interested to hear your take on exactly how many "sides" there are in Syria so as to make this notion work. Personally I think the answer is quite a bit larger than 2.
quote:This has been a need for political "debates" for decades.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
For future debates I suggest that they use 'off' switches on the microphones. A candidate's microphone would only work when it was his/her turn to answer a question -- not when his/her opponent was speaking, or the moderator.
quote:We could do a color commentary thread in Hell, maybe.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:There are two more debates...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Pity the two of us didn't organize a debate-watching Shipmeet. We'd all be going on to bigger and better things by now.
quote:Wow. Just how many times can folks evade a direct point by tossing out some other random assertion that it's all the fault of the Democrats?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Oh, I'm sorry!!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A stand against Russia in Syria?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Just replace "Georgia" with "Syria", that'll work just fine...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't wishing Obama had taken a more aggressive stand during the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008) a bit like wondering why he wasn't in the Oval Office during the 9/11 attacks?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Russia under Putin is a repressive regime internally expanding its borders by war and the threat of war. It is a great pity that [qb]Obama didn't feel able to take a more aggressive stand against Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. Trump's indebtedness to Putin should on its own be a big factor in keeping him out of the Oval Office.
I'd be damned interested to hear your take on exactly how many "sides" there are in Syria so as to make this notion work. Personally I think the answer is quite a bit larger than 2.
I trust Hillary Clinton to get it all straightened out since she obviously contributed to fucking it all up.
quote:I actually wondered the same thing. It was continuous and so loose, really sickening. He may be one of those old men with sleep apnea problems. Hillary, OTOH was bright eyed and perky throughout and has proved she can throw off a bad infection in record time. If it was just a health question I'd go with her.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Regard's Trump sniffles. I was wondering if he might have taken cocaine. I have seen this with coke heads.
quote:I've also seen it with people with colds and hay fever.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Regard's Trump sniffles. I was wondering if he might have taken cocaine. I have seen this with coke heads.
quote:I doubt that anyone who's already decided to vote for Trump will read it. It might change the minds of the floating voter, but who knows?! I wouldn't discount a Trump presidency as within the bounds of possibility however horrible the idea seems ...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A discussion of the unappeasable disgust that the Tiny Fingered One elicits from many of us. A free click.
This is from the NY Times:
A summary of why Trump should not be president.
The money quote: "Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?"
quote:I'm a bit disappointed in him. I remember with some sadness how his own campaign was sabotaged by the media because of their ridiculous focus on one scream. You would think he would have focused on something more substantive- of which there was plenty.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Howard Dean asks the question.
Speaking as someone whose stance on this could fairly be described as Boy, Do I Hope It's True, I'm still gonna say that Dean's speculation is pretty irresponsible, and probably unhelpful, given his standing as a high-profile Democrat.
quote:No. It's someone different every time.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is the same man due to chair the next two?
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Former TV anchor Dan Rather (remember him?)
quote:I saw it as proof that karma is real, and she's pissed. After all his endless hyperbolic 2nd guessing of HIllary's every cough and stumble, here he is in prime time and he's sniffing like a coke fiend at a rave. He clearly has monkey flu or penguin AIDs or a new version of pigeon ebola. We will have to quarantine him for the good of the country-- 10, 20 years oughta do it.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:I've also seen it with people with colds and hay fever.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Regard's Trump sniffles. I was wondering if he might have taken cocaine. I have seen this with coke heads.
quote:Quotes file!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think Trump's audition for Fox's new reality show, "Candidate Island" went quite well.
quote:A "New Yorker" cartoon (probably pay-to-see) depicts it as a cock fight.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
This was not a debate it was a brawl.
quote:The way our morning news reported it left me wondering if Clinton's "illness" wasn't just a ruse for trump to stumble into.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Analysing Trump's sniffles seems a really dumb thing for any Democrat to do right after complaining about the hyperbole that surrounded Clinton's recent illness.
quote:Until this election, that would be puerile and unnecessary to state.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:A "New Yorker" cartoon (probably pay-to-see) depicts it as a cock fight.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
This was not a debate it was a brawl.
(No, not that kind -- I mean roosters!)
quote:Aargh. Why is it that people love conspiracy theories so goddamn much?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:The way our morning news reported it left me wondering if Clinton's "illness" wasn't just a ruse for trump to stumble into.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Analysing Trump's sniffles seems a really dumb thing for any Democrat to do right after complaining about the hyperbole that surrounded Clinton's recent illness.
He questions her 'stamina' when some observers thought it was he who looked frayed at the edges.
All good cat and mouse stuff for this stage of the race.
quote:The Illuminati want it that way.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why is it that people love conspiracy theories so goddamn much?
quote:Oooh no. It's a good thing you don't see any reason to assume Trump did coke. We all hate to think Trump did coke.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Trump's sniffling:
I didn't notice it. But, for the first part of the debate, his face looked very pale, exhausted, and ill. Then, he somehow pinked up.
I don't see any reason to assume he did coke.
quote:He he. As much as we are told the Universe subject to the laws of chance and chaos many are simple unable to interpret it that way.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Aargh. Why is it that people love conspiracy theories so goddamn much?
quote:Unfortunately, with Trump you really have to clarify as the other sort of fight is not out of the question for a debate...
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:A "New Yorker" cartoon (probably pay-to-see) depicts it as a cock fight.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
This was not a debate it was a brawl.
(No, not that kind -- I mean roosters!)
quote:The bit that stood out for me was this neat encapsulation of character.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Hell has officially frozen over. The Arizona Republic (which was originally called The Arizona Republican -- I kid you not) has, for the first time since it was founded in 1890 -- endorsed the Democratic candidate for President!
quote:
Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.
That’s beneath our national dignity.
When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet.
quote:Just wow.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Hell has officially frozen over. The Arizona Republic (which was originally called The Arizona Republican -- I kid you not) has, for the first time since it was founded in 1890 -- endorsed the Democratic candidate for President!
quote:You know the worrying thing is he could be right. Voters who feel angry and anti-political-elite and all that and who respond to populism will think Trump won that debate. And if there are enough of them then he did really win.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
quote:I thought that when he said 'because I'm smart', when Clinton said he hadn't paid taxes. I guess that lots of people will think that is smart, and it's pretty smart to talk about women as trash, and so on, and be a racist.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You know the worrying thing is he could be right. Voters who feel angry and anti-political-elite and all that and who respond to populism will think Trump won that debate. And if there are enough of them then he did really win.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
quote:That was actually another New Yorker cartoon yesterday.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Over in the NY Times magazine, a columnnist watched the debate and says, "What I would have given for Clinton to offer him a tissue."
quote:All true, but those folks are already in his camp anyway, and they're not likely to budge.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I thought that when he said 'because I'm smart', when Clinton said he hadn't paid taxes. I guess that lots of people will think that is smart, and it's pretty smart to talk about women as trash, and so on, and be a racist.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You know the worrying thing is he could be right. Voters who feel angry and anti-political-elite and all that and who respond to populism will think Trump won that debate. And if there are enough of them then he did really win.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
I suppose you hope that they're in a minority. It's weird from abroad, to see how professional and capable, and well, tough, Clinton looks, (whereas he looks like a manchild), but then I can see the appeal of someone outside the political class.
One of her key claims was technically true but misleading. (The other 13 were true). quote:Newt Gingrich, who wouldn't recognize a winner if he were betting on the 144,000's chances of being raptured.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
quote:There's also the question of how much presidential debates and the winning thereof matter to voters. If you recall 2004, John Kerry thoroughly beat George W. Bush in all three of their debates, yet the voters nonetheless returned W to the White House. This may be a bit different though, since Bush Jr.'s appeal was supposed to be that he was just a regular guy who didn't need all that fancy-pants knowledge to do what's right as President. Trump's appeal, on the other (tiny) hand, is that he's the winningest winner who ever won, so losing a debate directly undercuts his case with the public.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You know the worrying thing is he could be right. Voters who feel angry and anti-political-elite and all that and who respond to populism will think Trump won that debate. And if there are enough of them then he did really win.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
quote:Or a kazoo, as was mentioned upthread.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Vladimir Putin could play him like a Stradivarius.
quote:Well, there's always those polyester suits . . . .
while Hillary Clinton seemed intelligent and capable throughout the debate, she failed to project the suitable male demeanor
quote:Seriously, how exactly did you score this shit-kicking? Number of interruptions? Quantity or quality of word salad? Sniffs? "Believe me"s? One commentator said that Trump's performance made Sarah Palin look like Henry Kissinger by comparison.
Originally posted by romanlion:
No secret that I'm not an Illary fan, but she should be comfortable for the next 24 to 48 hours after having the s**t kicked out of her tonight. ...
quote:Illary should have run away more quickly when she set her "trap".
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A free click laying out the surprisingly elaborate details of Hillary's debate booby-trap.
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Over on the Fox News website you can read Newt explaining how Donald really won.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You know the worrying thing is he could be right. Voters who feel angry and anti-political-elite and all that and who respond to populism will think Trump won that debate. And if there are enough of them then he did really win.
quote:I was thinking of the Bush Kerry encounters as well. I don't know if that was as simple as saying the debate didn't matter to voters, as you say Bush's regular guy vs Kerry's oh-so-clever-elite could have played well with voters.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's also the question of how much presidential debates and the winning thereof matter to voters. If you recall 2004, John Kerry thoroughly beat George W. Bush in all three of their debates, yet the voters nonetheless returned W to the White House. This may be a bit different though, since Bush Jr.'s appeal was supposed to be that he was just a regular guy who didn't need all that fancy-pants knowledge to do what's right as President. Trump's appeal, on the other (tiny) hand, is that he's the winningest winner who ever won, so losing a debate directly undercuts his case with the public.
quote:The persistent name calling really looks very Trump on you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Illary should have...
quote:Except that would give the Clinton camp carte blanche to start (further) raking around in Trump's Skeleton Cupboard.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The dirt from the Clinton 90s - hmm. Is there a suggestion that Trump might start talking about Bill's affairs? Well, that would really be a good move by Trump, certainly.
quote:It's still odd, though. When I was at school the good looking and/ or athletic kids got to mock those of us who lacked those qualities. But when you see Trump having a go at Miss Universe, or for that matter, Frankie Boyle having a pop at Rebecca Addison's looks my first thought is always: "frankly, it would take a very bad light for anyone to remotely mistake you for a young Apollo" and I'm always slightly surprised that the victims don't seem to point this out.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
To gross misogynists like Trump, "ugly" is not based on any assessment of a woman's appearance (not that it would be any more valid if it were), it's just shorthand for "uppity bitch who disagrees with me".
quote:Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I notice that Trump said he didn't do it out of respect for Chelsea, yeah, pull the other one, the one with bells, dream-catchers, and Accrington Stanley season tickets on.
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:Except that would give the Clinton camp carte blanche to start (further) raking around in Trump's Skeleton Cupboard.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The dirt from the Clinton 90s - hmm. Is there a suggestion that Trump might start talking about Bill's affairs? Well, that would really be a good move by Trump, certainly.
I have a hunch there may be even more to be found in the furthest corners. He might not fancy any more scrutiny.
While demolishing Trump's character further may not gain Hillary much more traction (his followers don't care how despicable he is and for some of them its a positive asset), it wouldn't surprise me if she has a couple of bombshells like that in reserve for the 3rd and final Debate.
quote:Yes, it's really become quite tiresome. Why aren't you attacking Mrs. Clinton's policies, not her human frailties and certainly not those of her husband?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:The persistent name calling really looks very Trump on you.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Illary should have...
quote:I was digging her upscale mom haircut the other day. Practical, but shiny.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And since I’ve gone down the rabbit-hole of women’s physical appearance, am I the only one bemused by the claim that Hillary Clinton is not attractive? I don’t find her particularly ugly. That white pantsuit? She looks great in it.
quote:Dude, I'm always losing 15 pounds.
As for The Donald’s actual weight, we have some clues. A gushing doctor’s note released Dec. 14, 2015 said Trump had lost “at least 15 pounds” in the prior year, though it did not state his original weight.]
quote:That was pretty much Chelsea Clinton's reaction too:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I notice that Trump said he didn't do it out of respect for Chelsea, yeah, pull the other one, the one with bells, dream-catchers, and Accrington Stanley season tickets on.
quote:Shorter version: If you're trying to spare my feelings about my parents' past marital problems, that ship sailed long ago.
And candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately.
quote:There's an element of consumerism as well. Men in the fiscal 1 percent in particular seem to think of women's beauty as a commodity to be bought and sold like everything else your wealth entitles you to. An average looking woman is just a cheap polyester sweater from K mart
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:I was digging her upscale mom haircut the other day. Practical, but shiny.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And since I’ve gone down the rabbit-hole of women’s physical appearance, am I the only one bemused by the claim that Hillary Clinton is not attractive? I don’t find her particularly ugly. That white pantsuit? She looks great in it.
Back in the day where people were sane about this sort of thing, people would have called her " handsome." But one of the hallmarks of this generation's version of misogyny is the way women are divided into " hot" and "ugly". In the past I've called it " the physical one percent." By making it a failing to be simply average, you give yourself permission to hate most women, while shielding youself from the reality of your own misogyny by telling youself, " But she's not a real woman."
Can no one see my vision?
quote:I can see it, and I'll gladly join you on the barricades.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Starts to crumble? One of the most notable markers of the Trump candidacy to date is his weak support among . . . well, any demographic group that isn't both white and male.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I doubt if Trump dares to bring up Bill's affairs, and imply or state that Hillary is therefore a bad woman by contagion. Surely, the women's vote for him at that point starts to crumble.
quote:Even without Trump's excessive personal baggage the usual tactic would be for the candidate to stay clean and delegate the job of "going negative" to various surrogates. The running mate usually does so most publicly, but there are typically others. It will be interesting to see if Mike Pence works out a way to work it in to his debate against Tim Kaine next week.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, I don't think that bit is a mystery at all. Any comment he could make about Bill would generally apply to himself. Pretending to take the moral high ground in this situation is smart.
quote:I do. That's why I hate all that "everyone is beautiful" "find your inner beauty" "your uniqueness is your beauty" shit. The majority of humans are not (considered) beautiful, and unless one happens to find oneself competing in a beauty pageant, it shouldn't fucking matter to anybody at all.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One time on Facebook I went on this rant about how women should start an Ugly movement-- just take the power of that word away. Because that's what it is about-- power. If women are to be judged on their physical appearance, and 99% of women don't fit what the hive mind has decided is The Ideal Woman, that is a substantial chunk of the population you get to discount.
I think many politicians are starting to realize that just because you have been ignoring someone doesn't mean they aren't voting.
So, the Ugly movement means, if I am ugly, so be it. There are far more ugly people than perfect people. Disproportionately more. So fucking consider my ugly ass going to a voting booth.
The guy I was ranting to said, "But Kelly, you're not ugly at all!"
quote:This is why we need more fairy tales about ordinary-looking people.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I hate all that "everyone is beautiful" "find your inner beauty" "your uniqueness is your beauty" shit. The majority of humans are not (considered) beautiful, and unless one happens to find oneself competing in a beauty pageant, it shouldn't fucking matter to anybody at all.
quote:The strong language was nowhere near as offensive as Trump's attitude.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yet another damning assessment of Trump's character. This should be a free click, but uses strong language.
quote:Depends on which models you're looking at. But in any event, the election is 39 days off. I suspect we'll have a stressful 39 days watching the models move back and forth a bit in the swing states.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I predicted, Nevada and Florida have moved into the Clinton camp. North Carolina is also going from pink to light blue. Ohio starting to go to light pink as well.
quote:He has not hesitated to use foul language, usually to women.
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:The strong language was nowhere near as offensive as Trump's attitude.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yet another damning assessment of Trump's character. This should be a free click, but uses strong language.
Huia
quote:I'm not counting any chickens but the direction of travel is one I approve off.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I predicted, Nevada and Florida have moved into the Clinton camp. North Carolina is also going from pink to light blue. Ohio starting to go to light pink as well. If Ohio goes blue, it is over.
quote:I don't think he's desperate, he just can't help himself. Desperation would require Trump to believe his campaign is in trouble, and he seems mentally incapable of seeing himself as a winner.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And now it Trump is getting desperate, spending last night Tweeting about some alleged Machado sex tapes.
quote:Yes. Trump is fixated on Alicia Machado after all these years because H Clinton brought her up in the debate Monday night. He can't let something like that go; he has to try and show why his actions and comments were justified and the other person in question deserved whatever treatment he gave them. All of which, of course, the Clinton campaign knows and undoubtedly was counting on.
Originally posted by HCH:
Is there any reason Trump is so fixated on Alicia Machado after 20 years?
quote:Hidden in there is a justification for voting Trump that is at least halfway intelligent: the prospect of the Supreme Court majority changing under an incoming Democrat.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a long, interesting and somewhat sad story fron the NYTimes: in which bewildered evangelicals plan to vote for Trump.
quote:Well, the only big bank. Which could be especially problematic in light of the current investigation of Deutsche Bank by the U.S. government:
Originally posted by Penny S:
On one of the links I have read, I think I saw that the only bank which would deal with him was Deutsche Bank.
Could something interesting be brewing?
quote:There are allegations that Trump also owes money to Russian oligarchs (who typically aren't troubled by bank regulators), but in the absence of his tax returns this largely relies on extrapolation.
The US government has charged that the German banking giant misled investors into buying bad mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, and it is demanding that Deutsche Bank pay $14 billion to settle legal claims. The bank is reported to have planned for a settlement of $2 billion to $3 billion, and negotiations between it and the Department of Justice are likely to be contentious and last for months — possibly well into the next administration. Should Trump take the White House, what Deutsche Bank ends up paying for its alleged misdeeds might depend on how tough Trump's Justice Department will be with the bank to which he owes so much money.
The conflict of interest in this possible scenario is obvious. His administration would have to render a decision greatly affecting a foreign commercial interest holding substantial leverage over Trump. A President Trump would have a strong disincentive to apply pressure on Deutsche Bank and risk souring his relationship with the institution on which he is so dependent. And would he want to tick off this lender? If Trump and his company ever were to have trouble repaying his Deutsche Bank loans, he would be at the bank's mercy.
Deutsche Bank is one of the only big banks willing to work with Trump these days and has provided financing for his various real estate projects. Trump has borrowed as much as $364 million from Deutsche Bank since 2012, and all four of the outstanding loans will come due before 2024 — the end of a potential second Trump presidential term.
quote:I ran some actuarial calculations on this in the parallel Dead Horse thread. Given the unlikelihood of Merrick Garland being confirmed before the inauguration of the next president, whoever gets the job will get to make at least one appointment. If the person making that appointment is Hillary Clinton it would mean the Supreme Court would have a majority of Democrat-appointed justices for the first time since 1969. That's not an advantage Republicans will want to give up.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OTOH this was the argument trotted out for voting against Obama, not once but twice. The Notorious RBG may be immortal, or at least a tough enough old bird to sit out 8 years of another President.
quote:It must be time to read/watch The Pelican Brief again...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Purely hypothetical. I don't know if the Supreme Court has an annual picnic.
quote:I'd almost put money on him being confirmed if Hillary wins in November. Merrick Garland is significantly more conservative than any of Hillary's likely picks, so the Republican Senate might find itself doing a sudden and rapid about-face in order to minimize their losses.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given the unlikelihood of Merrick Garland being confirmed before the inauguration of the next president,
quote:Assuming Obama doesn't simply withdraw the nomination at that point.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'd almost put money on him being confirmed if Hillary wins in November. Merrick Garland is significantly more conservative than any of Hillary's likely picks, so the Republican Senate might find itself doing a sudden and rapid about-face in order to minimize their losses.
It would be amusing to see what kind of spurious "justification" they could come up with for that.
quote:Do the Angry White People who make up Trump's core constituency follow that paper or care what it says? To someone who is an outsider this is just a bunch of names preaching to the converted.
Originally posted by Kelly Alv es:
Wow. The New York Times.
quote:I really love that film. Well-done suspense; Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington; and some really wonderful nature photography.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It must be time to read/watch The Pelican Brief again...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Purely hypothetical. I don't know if the Supreme Court has an annual picnic.
quote:But the above listed people presumably are connected to others in a more significant way than simply being names on a list. If they are ready to sign, then they are ready to speak up-- to family members, colleagues, church members, who knows.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that's the problem. Trump has a hardcore constituency with whom he resonates, reason or not.
Compled with, as I read somewhere else, the danger of an "up-yours", have-a-laugh Boaty McBoatFace voting bloc - a similar demographic perhaps to some of the Brexit Leave vote.
quote:rofl Oh, I really hope so. He's such a great businessman.
Originally posted by Penny S:
On one of the links I have read, I think I saw that the only bank which would deal with him was Deutsche Bank.
Could something interesting be brewing?
quote:Oh man, that was a spectacular setup ("Just one more thing, Lester") and Dinky Donald fell for it hook, line and sinker. When Clinton was speaking about Machado, he kept saying "Where'd you get that? Where'd you find that?" and the answer, of course, as any fool other than Dinky knows, is oppo research.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Yes. Trump is fixated on Alicia Machado after all these years because H Clinton brought her up in the debate Monday night. He can't let something like that go; he has to try and show why his actions and comments were justified and the other person in question deserved whatever treatment he gave them. All of which, of course, the Clinton campaign knows and undoubtedly was counting on.
Originally posted by HCH:
Is there any reason Trump is so fixated on Alicia Machado after 20 years?
quote:No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
quote:
A sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.
quote:Well yes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
quote:What's to overlook? He's not expressed any same sex attraction. Heterosexual serial monogamy (with occasional parallel monogamy) and heterosexual soft-porn is perfectly fine and all in the bible.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The evangelical constituency's willingness to overlook Trump's sexual mores in the face of their obsession with all things sexual is puzzling, though. I suppose not a few OT kings set some kind of precedent...
quote:Brilliant description of really bad theology. 'Look, I've got that woman up the duff but no worries. I can get her husband killed off because that's what King David did, and hey, didn't he write the psalms?'
Originally posted by mdijon:
What's to overlook? He's not expressed any same sex attraction. Heterosexual serial monogamy (with occasional parallel monogamy) and heterosexual soft-porn is perfectly fine and all in the bible.
quote:He was being daft as usual. But it does seem to apply this time around. Clearly Clinton has her faults and "Good" might be overstating it, but it does seem a very stark choice of values. Either you care about civilized behaviour or you don't. If you don't then there's only so much that debates, ads, letters of generals and learned commentators can provide.
It’s a simple choice between good and evil. I don’t think it has been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.
quote:Ain't that the truth. Despite the habits of the last 70 years, I'm close to giving up trying. The Goths are at the gates, as mdijon says. The definition of sanity appears to be shifting, and not in favour of the sane.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know how one talks people out of post-truth
quote:Nice one.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh! I was going to say that the Philippines was different because of the crushing poverty and long-term separatist movement in the south.
quote:Bang on.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... Clearly Clinton has her faults and "Good" might be overstating it, but it does seem a very stark choice of values. Either you care about civilized behaviour or you don't. If you don't then there's only so much that debates, ads, letters of generals and learned commentators can provide.
And if enough people don't care about civilized standards and embrace the darkness then we'll have Trump. ...
quote:
"¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!" ("Death to intelligence! Long live death!")
quote:The definition of sanity is always shifting. Go back 100 years to see the Major World Powers of that day locked in a massive mortal conflict, eating up both man and resources, which no one knew how to end.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Ain't that the truth. Despite the habits of the last 70 years, I'm close to giving up trying. The Goths are at the gates, as mdijon says. The definition of sanity appears to be shifting, and not in favour of the sane.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know how one talks people out of post-truth
quote:Hey, watch your terminology there, dude.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The evangelical constituency's willingness to overlook Trump's sexual mores in the face of their obsession with all things sexual is puzzling, though. I suppose not a few OT kings set some kind of precedent...
quote:Exactly. The anybody-but-Hillary crowd seems to have forgotten about the 3rd branch. It's possible for Hillary Clinton to become president and for the GOP to control both houses of Congress and stymie her as they did Obama.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
quote:Sort of. For a lot of the post-war period the U.S. Congress was nominally under Democratic control, but the reality was that it was controlled by a coalition of conservative (typically Southern) Democrats and Republicans. This started breaking down when enough former Dixiecrats jumped ship to the Republican party.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I - as an outsider - ask a question.
I believe that Congress tends to be predominantly Republican; and that is has often stymied the reforming efforts of Democrat Presidents.
quote:I think it's more important to look at it from the other direction. Trump shows no real interest in policy beyond a few very specific issues (build a giant wall, ban Muslim travel) so he's likely to sign whatever crazy laws Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan put in front of him.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To what extent do you think the Republican members of Congress will frustrate and moderate Trump's plans, if he should get elected. (We can take it for granted that the Democrats will oppose him).
quote:If you're serious:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
quote:Actually both houses of Congress wer in the hands of Democrats for the first two years of Obama's first term. That's when the Affordable Care Act was passed, though even that was a struggle.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
quote:If you're serious:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
quote:Obama was inaugurated President in January 2009. At that time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi commanded a majority in the House of Representatives, with 255 Democrats to the Republicans' 179, And in the Senate, 59 Democrats or Dem-voting Independents vs 41 Republicans was almost a filibuster-proof majority.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
quote:In an extra twist of the knife, the envelope in which the documents arrived at the Times claimed to have been mailed from Trump Tower.
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.
quote:
Rich people laws confuse and disturb or ordinary voters. Imagine I put all my money on a bet that blows up in my face. It is not hard to explain what happens next: I lose all my money. In a month Ex-football players pull up in a truck and carry away my stuff. The rules are different for rich people. It is like you simply cannot lose as long as you can pay the right accountant. Everyone more or less knows that, but having it rubbed in your face like this is viscerally galling.
quote:I think maybe you and LC and I are using different definitions of "friendly". Yes, the Democrats were powerful, initially. But you can rarely do anything with just the folks on one side of the aisle. (I.e., one party.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Actually both houses of Congress wer in the hands of Democrats for the first two years of Obama's first term. That's when the Affordable Care Act was passed, though even that was a struggle.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
quote:If you're serious:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
quote:Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
quote:Again, on a superficial reading this suggests that Trump somehow converted debt into income ("red ink into gold").
the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold
quote:What does PITA stand for please?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
quote:Pain in the arse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:What does PITA stand for please?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
quote:Yes, but that protection from taxes gives more usable assets to then build wealth. Tax law allows protection of assets that also translate to tools to build wealth. So the comment isn't complete, but it is not inaccurate at heat.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I find two phrases in the article particularly disingenuous. One isquote:Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
quote:I think you're right re the law. With a different candidate, especially a Republican, it wouldn't be an issue. But the thing is Trump has campaigned hard on his record of business success and this makes clear he's a pretty lousy business man who turned a large fortune into a small one.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've managed to find the rest of the NYT article now. It seems to confirm my above suspicions. If anything, it's a criticism of the tax system in place rather than a revelation of any misdeeds by Trump.
He (or his cunning tax advisers) exploited the provisions of tax law to the max, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him breaking the law. It comes across as crass, and certainly nothing to crow about in a presidential debate, but I think his own self-assessment that it makes him smart (in this respect) is not in actual fact too wide of the mark. Who goes out of their way to pay more tax than they have to?
I find two phrases in the article particularly disingenuous. One isquote:Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
The second isquote:Again, on a superficial reading this suggests that Trump somehow converted debt into income ("red ink into gold").
the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold
This simply isn't true. The worst one can say is that he offset business losses against future taxable income.
I'm on record here as arguing that Trump is in my view the worst possible candidate for the presidency by a long way, but this piece seems to me to be in the same vein as the stuff put out by his campaign against Clinton rather than revealing any damning facts.
quote:These are (allegedly) his personal taxes. More specifically they're three pages of his state income taxes from New Jersey for 1995.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not clear what's going on here. First and foremost I'm not clear as to whether they are discussing Trump's personal finances or those of his company or a holding company.
quote:Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The article further muddies the waters by damning the poor business decisions by Trump that led up to the losses, but as far as I can see he must have had enough cash to cover them, and his abilities in business are a separate issue to his tax doings.
quote:As with a lot of similar behavior during the recent financial crisis, the scandal isn't lawbreaking. The scandal is what's legal.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've managed to find the rest of the NYT article now. It seems to confirm my above suspicions. If anything, it's a criticism of the tax system in place rather than a revelation of any misdeeds by Trump.
He (or his cunning tax advisers) exploited the provisions of tax law to the max, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him breaking the law. It comes across as crass, and certainly nothing to crow about in a presidential debate, but I think his own self-assessment that it makes him smart (in this respect) is not in actual fact too wide of the mark.
quote:Thank you. I've not encountered that abbreviation before. I might adopt it for future use. Would you mind?
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:Pain in the arse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:What does PITA stand for please?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
quote:Following further reading of the Cyber, it seems to me that like other con artists, he freely conflates business assets in his own name and his personal assets. I expect he writes off a lot of his bling-bling lifestyle as company expenses (the larger-than-life version of putting a tiny business sticker on your personal car and writing it off as a business expense).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:These are (allegedly) his personal taxes. More specifically they're three pages of his state income taxes from New Jersey for 1995.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not clear what's going on here. First and foremost I'm not clear as to whether they are discussing Trump's personal finances or those of his company or a holding company.
quote:I meant that if he still had enough working capital to not go bankrupt, he must have done something right (in terms of surviving financially, not in terms of ethics).
quote:Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The article further muddies the waters by damning the poor business decisions by Trump that led up to the losses, but as far as I can see he must have had enough cash to cover them, and his abilities in business are a separate issue to his tax doings.
quote:I agree, but that's not really what the election's about, is it?
As with a lot of similar behavior during the recent financial crisis, the scandal isn't lawbreaking. The scandal is what's legal.
quote:I'm not sure. His core supporters, even if they suffer as lilbuddha has suggested, may just think he's got guts for sticking it to the system. Have you never been conned? And not been able to shake off a grudging sense of admiration for the guy who took your money?
From a political standpoint these revelations are disastrous.
quote:It can certainly be spun this way, but if what I relate above is true, it tends more to demonstrate that he cunningly exploited a loophole, put there by Bill Clinton, to the max.
Donald Trump is terrible businessman, who managed to lose about a billion dollars in a single year, during one of the biggest economic expansions in American history.
quote:The reactions of "core supporters" are irrelevant - the question is whether the contents of Trump's tax returns could sway uncommitted or weakly attached voters. His reluctance to release them suggests that he thinks it would hurt his chances of being elected.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I'm not sure. His core supporters, even if they suffer as lilbuddha has suggested, may just think he's got guts for sticking it to the system.
From a political standpoint these revelations are disastrous.
quote:We shall see. What this election's really all about is up to the voters to decide.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I agree, but that's not really what the election's about, is it?
As with a lot of similar behavior during the recent financial crisis, the scandal isn't lawbreaking. The scandal is what's legal.
quote:I don't think you need St Deird's permission -- it's in the public domain (though translated slightly differently in the U.S.).
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Thank you. I've not encountered that abbreviation before. I might adopt it for future use. Would you mind?
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:Pain in the arse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:What does PITA stand for please?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
quote:Last week, it was irresponsible. This week, we learned that Dinky is up at 3 am tweeting.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Howard Dean asks the question.
Speaking as someone whose stance on this could fairly be described as Boy, Do I Hope It's True, I'm still gonna say that Dean's speculation is pretty irresponsible, and probably unhelpful, given his standing as a high-profile Democrat.
quote:Which is why h does not wish to release his tax returns. He is not as "winning" as he presents.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They may also see him as a fighter who has overcome a huge loss - 20 years ago - and is still "winning".
quote:The more I think about it, the more I think Trump - and indeed his appeal - is best analysed and understood by seeing him as a con artist.
...any money passing through Rick's hands is subject to a redefinition of the laws of property, since whatever he does with it will improve mankind, whose principal representative he is
quote:Isn't that being a bit high minded? He's been a notorious figure for a long time. If the IRS hasn't had it's eye on him for years, it hasn't been doing it's job properly.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... Win or lose, the IRS is going to have its beady eye on him for a long, long time. The people in charge of foundations, the entities that regulate business -- he is now low-hanging fruit. If he is president he may be able to starve or bully regulators. But he can't be President forever.
Like in the tragedies, he has finally over-reached himself, and doom is near.
quote:Yes, what Donald Trump "did right" was to be born into enormous wealth. Once he did that, turning a large fortune into a small fortune would be regarded as a success.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
I meant that if he still had enough working capital to not go bankrupt, he must have done something right (in terms of surviving financially, not in terms of ethics).
quote:Bothsiderism really is pathological in American politics. First off, the American president does not have the power to craft legislation so it's inaccurate to attribute a change in the tax code to "none other than Bill Clinton". I'm sure a lot of Congressional fingerprints were all over that IRS legislation. (BTW, link?) Did Bill Clinton lobby for this particular alteration of the tax code? Threaten a veto if it wasn't included in legislation sent to him? Or was it simply legislation that crossed his desk and he signed? If it's the last one the most we can say is that Bill Clinton did not regard the inclusion of this particular revision to be a deal-breaker in what was likely a fairly large and comprehensive bill. (Again, link?)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However I have read that what he actually did (I may not have got this exactly right, but this is the gist of it AIUI) was write down the value of outstanding loans on his casino properties and was able to claim this in tax credit - due to an exceptional piece of IRS legislation for corporate real estate enacted by none other than Bill Clinton. I'm not sure such a piece of chicanery reflects well on either side.
quote:In the last debate Trump complained about how frequently he gets audited by the IRS. I'd say that we can now guess why that is with some degree of certainty.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't that being a bit high minded? He's been a notorious figure for a long time. If the IRS hasn't had it's eye on him for years, it hasn't been doing it's job properly.
quote:Members of Congress are immune from arrest, but only when Congress is in session. They're not immune from being investigated, though.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is the President as head of state, immune from investigation? If so, perhaps his whole campaign is a tax dodge.
quote:Plus there are allegations that he used money from his foundation. IIRC, there's been some news that his foundation doesn't have the right structure to be a non-profit.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yes, what Donald Trump "did right" was to be born into enormous wealth. Once he did that, turning a large fortune into a small fortune would be regarded as a success.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
I meant that if he still had enough working capital to not go bankrupt, he must have done something right (in terms of surviving financially, not in terms of ethics).
quote:I'm sure they were. I don't have a link to a reliable source, and wouldn't know where to start looking on that side of the pond, which is why I didn't provide one.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm sure a lot of Congressional fingerprints were all over that IRS legislation. (BTW, link?)
quote:SPK and Stetson have already pretty much covered this. Article I, section 3, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Croesos--
Re presidents not being able to pardon in cases of impeachment:
What about Ford pardoning Nixon?
quote:It's that last bit I've put in bold which Ford's pardon of Nixon was covering.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
quote:Isn't that being a bit high minded? He's been a notorious figure for a long time. If the IRS hasn't had it's eye on him for years, it hasn't been doing it's job properly.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Then why should we take that assertion as evidence of anything?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I'm sure they were. I don't have a link to a reliable source, . . .
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm sure a lot of Congressional fingerprints were all over that IRS legislation. (BTW, link?)
quote:Actually it seems like you're trying to saddle both Bill and Hillary Clinton with the actions of Congress. That's the only way to square your claim that it's equivalent to Trump's tax avoidance.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
. . . and wouldn't know where to start looking on that side of the pond, which is why I didn't provide one.
In any case I was not trying to saddle Hillary with Bill's actions, so much as suggest the tax arrangement that allowed this might not be the monopoly of either side, Republican or Democrat.
quote:It may very well be, but the person who could most easily remove that ambiguity is Donald Trump and he has declined to do so. Until/unless he releases his tax returns, he's going to be subject to speculation like this. That is the nature of politics and why presidential candidates started publicly releasing their tax returns in the first place.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sane people everywhere may rejoice at the dent this may deal to Trump's hopes, but I'm disappointed the effectiveness of the dent ("Trump hasn't paid taxes for 20 years") may not be in line with the truth, which is seemingly more complex.
quote:I don't know about the IRS bit, but certainly in terms of doing business with the guy I agree that people are likely to be running for the hills.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As in the very best Greek tragedies, Trump pay have hubristically drawn his doom upon himself, and in quite a different way that one might expect.
Win or lose, he's going to take a hit on the business front. How many people will ever patronize a Trump business again? (He has supporters, you say. But do his supporters often stay at 5 star hotels?)
Win or lose, his vendors and suppliers are going to be wary. It is hard to imagine a business owner with any sense of self protection doing deals with the Donald except on a cash-in-advance basis. There have been far too many credible accounts of the Tiny Fingered One stiffing small business owners.
Win or lose, the IRS is going to have its beady eye on him for a long, long time. The people in charge of foundations, the entities that regulate business -- he is now low-hanging fruit. If he is president he may be able to starve or bully regulators. But he can't be President forever.
Like in the tragedies, he has finally over-reached himself, and doom is near.
quote:As opposed to what we have now.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The same way he behaves about everything, like a 12-year-old impressed with the cleverness of their own wit.
quote:Do you mean Obama? Lots of people are impressed, and he doesn't act like he's twelve, and he's not all pissy.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to what we have now.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The same way he behaves about everything, like a 12-year-old impressed with the cleverness of their own wit.
A twelve-year-old all pissy because no one is impressed.
quote:This is so far from reality it's not funny.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to what we have now.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The same way he behaves about everything, like a 12-year-old impressed with the cleverness of their own wit.
A twelve-year-old all pissy because no one is impressed.
quote:If you'd like to move it up a year, Maureen Dowd in the New York Times has a delightful article on this topic.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is so far from reality it's not funny.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As opposed to what we have now.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The same way he behaves about everything, like a 12-year-old impressed with the cleverness of their own wit.
A twelve-year-old all pissy because no one is impressed.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm keeping it real, keeping it on the down low, as they say in America.
quote:They'd like, themselves, to get away with it, but they don't want other people to be able to. Trump represents their dream of who they'd like to be. What a frightening thought.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The unwashed seem to be delighted that Trump knows how to game the system and minimize or completely avoid paying taxes. Yet they bitch about welfare fraud -- people gaming the system. Which is it people?
quote:Or maybe it is, as in "they are s******g us on the down-low"
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm keeping it real, keeping it on the down low, as they say in America.
I'm not sure "on the down low" is really the phrase you were looking for.
quote:An interesting point made by Fallows (although maybe rather an obvious one), that Trump's supporters are for him, rather than any policies. While this gives his support a kind of durability, since they don't care how much nonsense he talks about, it also restricts it.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As Inigo Montoya said!
Here is a denuciation of the toxic confluence between evangelical Christianity and politics which has brought us to this pretty pass.
And the ever-sensible James Fallows over at the Atlantic has a cogent summary of the election's end game. These should both be free clicks.
quote:[TANGENT]In African-American slang it refers to same-sex conduct among males.
Originally posted by simontoad:
damn. I thought 'on the down low' meant low key, but google tells me it means secret, and there is a sexual connotation.
quote:Actually, it kinda makes sense. Welfare is a place they hope never to end up,* but being rich is something they desire to attain.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The unwashed seem to be delighted that Trump knows how to game the system and minimize or completely avoid paying taxes. Yet they bitch about welfare fraud -- people gaming the system. Which is it people?
quote:I think it’s quite simple. Benefit is money you get from the state, so if you’re not entitled, you’re seen as stealing from everyone.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Or perhaps it is that rich people are simply 'gaming the system' while poor people are freeloaders. The rich are acknowledged to be not like you and me. What next? Tugging of forelocks?
quote:Specifically, secret conduct between males when at least one of them claims to be straight and is in a relationship with a woman.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[TANGENT]In African-American slang it refers to same-sex conduct among males.[/TANGENT]
quote:I think that's right. Even seeing someone in a Lexus gives me that feeling. It seems alien to me, and possibly, it's mutual.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think the gap between rich and poor has become so enormous people have become confused. Like when we hear the story today of someone having 7 million quids worth of bling stolen from a hotel room. It is odd, surreal, we do not know how to process it.
quote:The rich can still get a golden ticket if they stick a needle in a camels eye, or something.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, for you Christians, the poor are sinful, and the rich are virtuous, by virtue of their poverty and riches. Oh hang on, I think I've got that wrong.
quote:I know, it really threw me for a minute and, call me judgmental, but it seemed really, deeply immoral to me. I usually don't care how people spend their money and if they want to spend it all on antique dolls or a dozen yachts in different colors, it's nothing to me. But the idea of 7 million dollars worth of shiny rocks when that money could feed thousands of hungry children, and vaccinate them for parasites, and fix their cleft palates, and send them to school -- at some level it just has to be so wrong.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think the gap between rich and poor has become so enormous people have become confused. Like when we hear the story today of someone having 7 million quids worth of bling stolen from a hotel room. It is odd, surreal, we do not know how to process it.
quote:Especially given that he's an anti-vaxxer according to those pinkos at Forbes. Which is unsurprising given that conspiracy theories are often believed in clusters.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I find it difficult to imagine Donald Trump concerned about unvaccinated children.
quote:Oh, the racism had been obvious since 2008. Hell, people were defending a political cartoon featuring a capering monkey with a watermelon slice on the Whitehouse lawn within weeks of the election.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I thought that this article on Obama had quite a lot of insight into American politics (as you'd expect from a President who, ahem, is a fully functioning adult) and how the Republican base has got American politics where it is now.
Personally I can't shake the view that there's been a large dollop of racism, and now misogyny, in this process. In essence, that a large chunk of Republican support is coming from people who cannot cope with white men not being in charge any more. None of that is in the article, that's just my own personal feeling.
quote:Ummm:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I find it difficult to imagine Donald Trump concerned about unvaccinated children. I saw today that if he is elected he will be the only President who has never owned a pet. There is a lack of empathy in the man that never fails to shock.
quote:Well, considering how he dissed Sen. John McCain, who was a POW (something to the effect of "POWs aren't winners; they get captured; I like winners"), don't automatically discount whatever you're referring to.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Me too. New thing about Trump, Veterans and PTSD being reported down here, but I think it's a bullshit criticism of Trump, so I'm not going to mention it. There are plenty of 100% no-poo criticisms available.
quote:The biggest problem with the orange idiot's comment regarding McCain is not that he insulted or offended anyone but that it is a stupid comment.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I wasn't particularly offended by Trump's putdown of McCain,
quote:And many people adore them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think the Trump candidacy shows the dinosaurs are far from dead.
quote:Yes, I really think he was saying that we need more help for vets in the area of mental health, but, as usual, he has so little diplomacy, so little real empathy for people that he didn't realize that "not as strong as other people," was the very last thing these men wanted to hear.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Reading his comments just now on Slate, they don't seem all that offensive when taken in context. He doesn't seem to be mocking suicidal veterans for not being "strong" or being unable to "handle it", just saying that not everyone has the same level of psychological tolerance for certain things that happen in war, and that the government needs to take better care of the ones who are more seriously effected.
quote:This post seems like an exercise in missing the point. One of the biggest problems with treating mental illness, particularly in the military or among veterans, is the stigma attached to it. Those who don't need help dealing with PTSD are "strong", while those who do are "weak" (a category often scorned by both the military and the Trump campaign). By framing PTSD in this strong/weak dichotomy Donald Trump is undermining a whole lot of effort spent trying to de-stigmatize mental health services among the military/veterans. It's not a question of whether Trump is "mocking" veterans, it's the fact that he's doing real harm to efforts to help veterans.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Reading his comments just now on Slate, they don't seem all that offensive when taken in context. He doesn't seem to be mocking suicidal veterans for not being "strong" or being unable to "handle it", just saying that not everyone has the same level of psychological tolerance for certain things that happen in war, and that the government needs to take better care of the ones who are more seriously effected.
quote:Twilight for president. A rational world puts you one up already.
Originally posted by Twilight:
He could have made the same plea for mental health care in the military by saying something like, "Even the strongest men can face things in combat that are impossible to imagine by people who have never been there. They need help getting past those traumatic memories -- anyone would."
quote:But he doesn't have the insight to recognize rational advisors. I guess in an ideal world presidents should appoint the advisors that tell them what they would have thought if they'd thought about it long enough to save them the thinking time, even if that goes against the grain of their first thoughts. Trump will want everyone to line up with his knee-jerk narcissistic reaction on each issue (even if the knee-jerk is 180 degrees from yesterday's knee-jerk).
Originally posted by Twilight:
He can hire a team of advisors to make rational decisions for him, but only Trump himself will be speaking for the country on a daily basis.
quote:I'm not sure how much luck has to do with it. It always seemed likely that Republicans would react to the first woman nominated for president on a major party ticket by nominating a massive misogynist to oppose her. Trump is underperforming in basic campaign organization (the "ground game") but he's managed to create a strong core of highly motivated racist and sexist (excuse me, "politically incorrect") followers in a way that I don't see any other contemporary Republican being able to do. The folks at Stormfront, Vdare, the KKK, they're all now enthusiastically engaged in a way that I can't see Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz inspiring in them. I'm actually being serious about this. White supremacists have long been politically apathetic as a group, regarding both major political parties as hostile to white nationalism. Donald Trump has managed to tap in to that pool of new voters.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I think Trump is the best gift anybody could have ever given Hillary. Considering she is barely ahead in popular opinion, according to the poll results I have seen, I don't think she would have a chance against a good Republican candidate.
quote:I'm really not seeing the case that this is the kind of opponent who would put the hard work in to a campaign capable of defeating Hillary Clinton.
Last week Bush came to Harvard to deliver its annual Godkin Lecture. That the occasion was announced just two days ahead of time came as something of a surprise. I went round to hear what the would-have-been candidate had to say.
The Godkin series is Harvard’s most most prestigious lecture in the social sciences. It was established in 1903, endowed by Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and others, to explore the essentials of democratic government and the duties of the citizen, in memory of Edwin Godkin, founder of The Nation magazine and for twenty years editor of The New York Post. Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, J. Robert Oppenheimer, C.P. Snow, Clark Kerr, Gunnar Myrdal, Paul Samuelson, George Will, Daniel Patrick Moynihan have been among the lecturers.
Bush’s presentation turned out not to be a lecture. It was billed as a “conversation,” but what the audience heard instead was an abbreviated stump speech, plus some back-and forth with Harvard professors Paul E. Peterson and Roland Fryer. “I was thinking about what I was going to talk about,” he said, “and I asked my mother, who is the boss of the Bush family, and she said, ‘Jeb, talk about ten minutes, then get off and let people ask you questions.’”
He talked for fifteen minutes about the desirability of a “bottom-up” society of individuals as opposed to a “top-down” society in which institutions were paramount, ending with a call for a “radical transformation” of public education.
quote:A person who has never seen active service and been at risk of being taken prisoner is not entitled to say that.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... Well, considering how he dissed Sen. John McCain, who was a POW (something to the effect of "POWs aren't winners; they get captured; I like winners"), don't automatically discount whatever you're referring to.
quote:I'm a refugee worker in Indiana (Pence's state). He refused to accept Syrian refugees but our two resettlement agencies resettled them anyway, so his refusal had only a momentary impact on the Syrians coming here.
Originally posted by Carex:
Meanwhile, Pence's refusal to resettle Syrian refugees has been struck down by the Circuit Court of Appeals. (He accepted Federal funds to resettle refugees in his State, but refused to accept any Syrians.) And this wasn't exactly a liberal panel - all three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and one was on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
quote:It's just bizarre. The federal income tax thing is spinning like a falling cat with buttered toast on its back. Last election cycle, those who didn't pay federal income tax, were in the 47% and were "takers" whose votes Obama bought with government handouts. But this time around, someone who doesn't pay federal income tax can say "that makes me smart". That would make the 47% smart as well, no? So it's smart to be a taker? I guess that means makers are dumb. But wait, we need the makers to create wealth and jobs. But wait, how can they do that if they're dumb? And did Trump vote for Obama?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Over on Salon Heather Digby Parton says, "If you think Trump is a genius for gaming the system so that he never has to pay federal income tax, that’s your prerogative. But please don’t ever say another word about “makers and takers” or the 47 percent again. We taxpayers have been carrying Donald Trump for 30 years while he was living in his golden palace. He’s the biggest welfare queen in the world."
quote:Except that nobody ever says, "Well, you know, some people have weaker legs than others, and those are the ones who break their leg skiing." It's one of the most stigmatizing stereotypes about mental illness, and it causes and prolongs human misery.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Reading his comments just now on Slate, they don't seem all that offensive when taken in context. He doesn't seem to be mocking suicidal veterans for not being "strong" or being unable to "handle it", just saying that not everyone has the same level of psychological tolerance for certain things that happen in war, and that the government needs to take better care of the ones who are more seriously effected.
quote:I read somewhere that at the same time he was claiming this heel spur thing as a reason to avoid service, he was distinguishing himself at his university in several different sports. Is that true? I mean, goodness knows there's enough to hold him in contempt for even if it's not, but if it is true it should be utterly damning (but in the current climate probably isn't, just like nothing else seems to be). Or, trying to look at it charitably, could that be how he got the heel spur in the first place?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Both my children are in the US Army, and so I pay close attention to any politician's attitudes towards war and the military. Trump long ago lost me, when I learned that he had gotten four deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. (Heel spurs, I believe, were his health issue. He cannot remember which heel it was.)
quote:Surely the figures on postal votes are kept under wraps until the main count? They are here. One local candidate only just escaped prosecution a few years ago for hinting publicly that the figures looked as though they were in her favour.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The early votes are starting to come in. Here in
Washington State, all ballots will be arriving in the mail shortly. Our state is a mail in state. Of course, we are a very blue state. But there are always some local initiatives that will garner quite a few votes. Two I am following are a Carbon Tax system, and a initiative to close loopholes in the gun registration system. I think the carbon tax proposal will fail, but the gun control issue will pass.
quote:Like everything else in the U.S., it depends on what state you're living in. No state tabulates results prior to Election Day, but they do keep a count of how many ballots are received, for obvious reasons. Some include more information, like this info from North Carolina (an actual 'battleground state'):
Originally posted by Enoch:
Surely the figures on postal votes are kept under wraps until the main count? They are here. One local candidate only just escaped prosecution a few years ago for hinting publicly that the figures looked as though they were in her favour.
quote:So we have public information on number of mail-in ballots accepted in North Carolina and the party registration of the voters who cast those ballots. While it gives you a good hint, party registration isn't the same as an actual vote tabulation. There's no guarantee that someone who is a registered Republican is actually casting his ballot for Donald Trump, nor will all registered Democrats vote for Hillary Clinton.
Registered Democrats continue to lead in the accepted ballots numbers, and are over-performing their 2012 same-day comparison numbers, at 129 percent of where they were in accepted ballots on the same day from four years ago. Registered unaffiliated voters are 128 percent of their same-day accepted ballots, and registered Republicans are 66 percent of where they were four years ago on the same day. Overall, the total returned and accepted mail-in ballots are at 96 percent of where they were on the same day in 2012.
quote:The running mate's job isn't to shore up their own favorability rating, it's to defend their chief and attack the top of the opposing ticket. Tim Kaine did very well by that metric, while Mike Pence did not. Or as one tweeter observed:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I confess I dislike Kaine, and not just tonight. IMHO, he always seems a bit unhinged. That gets in the way of my really listening to what he has to say.
Both of them seem to be saying the expected things. I've heard comments in the news that the Veep debate is more about personality and manner, than policy. Well, more than an hour into the debate, and neither has said anything new or noteworthy. They've both behaved badly, over and over, mostly in running right over the other guy's comments.
quote:
Tim Kaine is running for Vice President in 2016. Mike Pence is running for president in 2020.
quote:Pence is my governor
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Personality wise, I think the VP candidates should switch places--Pence seems more suited to Hillary, in his manner, and Kaine to Trump.
He's made a regular practice here of denying reality. Denial (even as a wing-man to a person who can't filter himself) is part of a personality. Unless Clinton needs the services of someone who will use a polite tone to act like a child caught near the broken window with a baseball in his hand, Pence is not her man.quote:What's notable is Pence's complaints about an "insult driven campaign" were almost all in response to Kaine accurately quoting things Donald Trump has said. One of the problems of blanket denials in the Age of Twitter is that there's a very quick turn-around time on pairing Pence saying "Donald Trump never said that" with a video of Donald Trump saying that.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Re the Veep debate, IMO Croesos has it right. Mind you, it is pretty hard to defend your chief when your chief is Trump, who is capable of saying (or tweeting) six indefensible things before breakfast.
quote:I think that's spot on; Pence has the long game in mind. He's trying to get through this present ordeal as unscathed as possible.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Tim Kaine is running for Vice President in 2016. Mike Pence is running for president in 2020.
quote:Pence has made his entire political career one of getting through things unscathed (while also doing nothing of much consequence except to enforce what the Tea Party wants him to enforce). He's risen by virtue of being the best boy to ultra conservatives.
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:I think that's spot on; Pence has the long game in mind. He's trying to get through this present ordeal as unscathed as possible.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:[/qb]
Tim Kaine is running for Vice President in 2016. Mike Pence is running for president in 2020.
So with the GOP establishment rallying around Pence's performance at last night's debate, the following scenario comes to mind: the party leaders, who have been lukewarm at best on Trump so far, pull a concerted effort in these remaining weeks to get him into office. Then they find a reason to impeach him (which would just force him to resign, not actually go to trial, à la Nixon) so as to put a President Pence in the White House.
quote:Because only bad people go to prison and anything that happens to them is deserved and will serve as a warning to others to not be bad.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Why on earth would someone oppose actions reducing prison rape?
quote:
... is it possible that if they liked their own nominee more, enough to feel that he deserved their vote, they would tell themselves less apocalyptic stories about the consequences of a Hillary Clinton, even if they still opposed it?
quote:He learned to deny a long time ago, before Trump's run for the presidency was even an issue. Denying reality has been a hallmark of Pence's strategy for as long as he has been part of Indiana politics. The other strategy is to do whatever ultra conservative bigwigs and money people want him to do.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I find more disturbing is that Pence will get into bed with an appalling disaster like Trump, merely to foster his own ambition. (You cannot argue he is doing this for fun.)
And he is learning from the top of the ticket how to deny reality. Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? It's gaslighting.
quote:It may be of some comfort that it is only some, and it is not confined to Americans.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(sigh) That is a depressing reflection upon the character of Americans. That's what is so lowering about this election season. It's like turning over a rock, and all these icky many-legged things come wriggling out.
quote:I think it would be totally in character for Dinky to get his butt to the Oval Office, and then resign by saying he cannot disentangle his business interests and he would lose too much money as President and he has a "fiduciary duty" to make as much money as possible. You're not a loser if you quit for a higher-paying job or if you're just too rich to be President, boo-hoo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is frightening about that scenario is that (a) it probably will not be very difficult to find a reason for impeachment.
But worse is (b) one cannot imagine Trump quietly resigning for the good of the commonweal. Wouldn't that make him a Loser? He would fight it, low and dirty, with all his might. Can the country afford the two or three years of tsouris this will take?
quote:I saw a humorous vid that put basically asked if the Democrats can rig elections, why is congress controlled by Republicans?
Originally posted by HCH:
I saw a news story today indicating that some Trump supporters say they will assume the election is rigged if Clinton wins. What was not clear is what they plan to do: lawsuits, armed rebellion, tax revolt, demonstrations, letters to editors, assassination attempts, grumbling, drunkenness, etc.
quote:An interesting follow-up on this point, courtesy of Business Insider:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I'm sure they were. I don't have a link to a reliable source, and wouldn't know where to start looking on that side of the pond, which is why I didn't provide one.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm sure a lot of Congressional fingerprints were all over that IRS legislation. (BTW, link?)
In any case I was not trying to saddle Hillary with Bill's actions, so much as suggest the tax arrangement that allowed this might not be the monopoly of either side, Republican or Democrat.
quote:
At a rally Tuesday in Arizona, Donald Trump sought to blame Hillary Clinton for his own low tax bills. He asked:
quote:Well, maybe Clinton didn't just try to change laws Trump used, but actually got them changed, when she was in the Senate in 2002.
"After years of failure, she complains about how I've used tax laws of this country to my benefit. Then I ask a simple question: Why didn't she ever try to change those laws so I couldn't use them?"
According to a Tuesday column by Lee Sheppard in the tax industry publication Tax Notes, Trump may have benefited greatly in the 1990s from a tax loophole related to forgiven debts — a loophole that would have allowed him to deduct business losses on his personal income tax return, even if those losses were actually borne by banks that loaned Trump money and never got it back.
People often use "loophole" to refer to tax deductions they don't like, but this one was a loophole in the true sense of the word: a tax break created by legislative accident.
This loophole was the subject of a 2001 Supreme Court case, Gitlitz v. Commissioner, in which the IRS argued the relevant tax law could not have possibly meant what it appeared to say, which was that business owners could in some cases deduct losses they had not actually borne.
After the IRS lost that case, the loophole was closed by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, a bill that then Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for and President George W. Bush signed.
quote:That sounds just like our Brexiteers. They won the referendum, and that's what makes me so worried for America and the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The most insightful comment I have read lately on Trump voters is that they are not expecting their candidate to make their lives better, but to make the lives of people they don't like worse.
quote:That's on a par with the man found guilty of murdering his parents who makes an impassioned speech demanding that court extend its mercy to him because he is an orphan.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At a rally Tuesday in Arizona, Donald Trump sought to blame Hillary Clinton for his own low tax bills. He asked:
quote:
"After years of failure, she complains about how I've used tax laws of this country to my benefit. Then I ask a simple question: Why didn't she ever try to change those laws so I couldn't use them?"
quote:Perhaps because she has never previously held elected office?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's on a par with the man found guilty of murdering his parents who makes an impassioned speech demanding that court extend its mercy to him because he is an orphan.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At a rally Tuesday in Arizona, Donald Trump sought to blame Hillary Clinton for his own low tax bills. He asked:
quote:
"After years of failure, she complains about how I've used tax laws of this country to my benefit. Then I ask a simple question: Why didn't she ever try to change those laws so I couldn't use them?"
quote:What are you talking about? She was a New York senator.
Perhaps because she has never previously held elected office? [Disappointed]
quote:Letters to editors? Would that not indicate literacy?
Originally posted by HCH:
I saw a news story today indicating that some Trump supporters say they will assume the election is rigged if Clinton wins. What was not clear is what they plan to do: lawsuits, armed rebellion, tax revolt, demonstrations, letters to editors, assassination attempts, grumbling, drunkenness, etc.
quote:She was a United States Senator from New York. There's a difference.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:What are you talking about? She was a New York senator.
Perhaps because she has never previously held elected office? [Disappointed]
quote:Tweet, of course. Literacy not required.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:Letters to editors? Would that not indicate literacy?
Originally posted by HCH:
Some Trump supporters say they will assume the election is rigged if Clinton wins. What was not clear is what they plan to do . . . .
quote:Yes, isn't it beautiful. God is gracious.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Meanwhile, am watching Red States become pinker, and pink states becoming bluer.
quote:Lavender?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Do we wind up with a lavender country, then?
quote:This is tremendously insightful. It's a special type of misogyny, because women are OK when they are young and fuckable, and liable to get pregnant, and give me sprogs, but then they go off the boil, and they droop, and dry up, and no more sprogs, so fuck off and die, while I get a younger version. (Paraphrase).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the reasons Clinton is hated is because she is an older woman. An inherently hateful state, if you deep-down believe that all women should be young. For this reason alone her candidacy is good for us. We need to get past this.
quote:Or even:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And alas, for fuckable. In the day it was an open secret that older women were randy. Remember the Wife of Bath, or all those women in Shakespeare? Without the worry of becoming pregnant, an older woman would frequently say yes.
quote:It's irrelevant. Those may all be ordinary things for many people, but voting is a right. People who don't have bank accounts or jobs or get welfare or health care still have the right to vote. Nowhere does the constitution say that if you don't have a particular type of ID, you can be subjected to an illegal search or an unusual punishment. Women have the right to vote yet nobody has to prove they're female to vote. Voter ID laws are racist, partisan and deliberately crafted to exclude certain voters, and this is openly admitted by the creators themselves. Whether or not that is outrageous is a matter of opinion, obviously.
Originally posted by Twilight:
...
I just don't think showing ID to vote seems like anything particularly outrageous. If someone has no picture ID at all I can't imagine how he/she manages to do ordinary things like open a bank account, start a new job, receive welfare, get care at the hospital, etc.
quote:Other groups that that come to mind are the elderly (who may have trouble producing an original birth certificate), the poor (who may not have three free hours in the middle of a workday to hang out at the DMV), or rural dwellers (who may live quite a distance from anywhere that can issue an official government photo ID).
Originally posted by Penny S:
The people, already registered voters, remember, mostly affected by this tend to be - guess what - black or Latino or - another group was mentioned, but I can't recall what it was.
quote:Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other Segregation-era methods of vote suppression were also facially neutral regarding race. It's the "as applied" stuff that you have to pay close attention to, like requiring photo ID to vote and then closing all the places that can issue such an ID in majority black counties.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On the face of it, it seems reasonable to require a photo ID. But in reality such laws are specifically designed to negatively affect black people, though it tangentially hits other poor people as well.
quote:Or people can just mail it in.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:It's irrelevant. Those may all be ordinary things for many people, but voting is a right. People who don't have bank accounts or jobs or get welfare or health care still have the right to vote. Nowhere does the constitution say that if you don't have a particular type of ID, you can be subjected to an illegal search or an unusual punishment. Women have the right to vote yet nobody has to prove they're female to vote. Voter ID laws are racist, partisan and deliberately crafted to exclude certain voters, and this is openly admitted by the creators themselves. Whether or not that is outrageous is a matter of opinion, obviously.
Originally posted by Twilight:
...
I just don't think showing ID to vote seems like anything particularly outrageous. If someone has no picture ID at all I can't imagine how he/she manages to do ordinary things like open a bank account, start a new job, receive welfare, get care at the hospital, etc.
quote:As long as he doesn't shoot a foetus.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm beginning to think he really could shoot someone dead on a crowded street in broad daylight and not lose votes -- even from the "pro-life" bunch.
quote:Once more with feeling: none of those - with the exception of buying a gun - are constitutional rights. And guess what? There are lots and lots of places in the USA where one can legally purchase a gun without showing ID.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Lots of rights are only dispensed after people prove their identity: social security, public education, etc. There's nothing unique about showing identity. Try getting through a day on a military base without whipping out your ID about twenty times. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms but I don't hear you complaining about people showing their ID to buy a gun. Every banking job I ever had required there own picture ID plus finger printing. Then I needed another picture ID to get in the Pentagon and I had to show it every single day to the same guards. ...
quote:Sorry I'm slow on this. My point was simply that a "New York senator," which is what you said, is not the same as a United States senator from New York.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Nick Taman, yes I know she was a US senator, I voted for her twice.
quote:Yes, Chicago has a reputation for that. Louisiana, too, I think.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Actually, there used to be rumors that the dead rose from their graves and voted for the Labor Party in council elections in Richmond in the 1970's. The Council was sacked, and I think a few people went to jail. I was a little boy at the time.
quote:But he *might* get upset enough to take his toys and go home. Some people have nicknamed him "Trumplestiltskin". It's easy to see him, like Rumplestiltskin in the story, getting so angry that he stomps around in a circle for so long that he eventually disappears into the earth.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is too late to take Trump off the ballot. They have mostly all been printed and distributed. Voting has begun in many states -- I plan to go and vote tomorrow.
There are provisions for something like the candidate becoming incapacitated or stepping down at this point. But, seriously -- can you imagine Trump stepping down for the good of the party? For the good of the nation? When has he ever evinced any interest in either of them?
quote:As I said earlier on this thread, unlike the post-truth logic that predominates in the Trump camp, their position makes at least some kind of sense.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
By the looks of things, most of the white Christian right that supports this man are doing so in order to get a Supreme Court that fits their morality.
They already know he's a womanizer, obscene, dangerous and racist.
They do not care.
As long as the SCOTUS changes to what they want, that's all that matters.
Even the direct admittance of sexual assault that came out today has not fazed them.
There is a whole whack of the OT these people are not really reading it seems.
quote:I feel the need to point out that both of those anecdotes seemed to relate times when David had clearly lost the plot and needed someone else-- a prophet, a son, an advisor-- to pull him up short. The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
David being the top case in point. He took Bathsheba as his property, arranged for her husband, one of his Mighty Men, to be killed, and did nothing about the rape of Tamar by Absalom. He nevertheless goes down in OT history as one of the greatest kings in Israel.
quote:And I suspect that this would be precisely the Christian right's argument in favour of Trump in the present case.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
quote:Don't you get an "I voted," sticker? Otherwise that's exactly like we do it in Ohio except for showing the ID while the big book is opened.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Voter fraud is not only not a problem in the US, it is not a problem in Australia where you go up to the people with the big books, stand in the line allocated to the first letter in your surname, tell them your surname, confirm the first few letters, wait for them to locate you in the big book, tell them your first name and address, answer "no" to the question "Have you voted elsewhere in this election?" watch them rule a line through your name in coloured pencil, watch them initial your ballot papers, receive the ballot papers from the person with the big books and then walk over to the little booth and draw a penis on your ballot papers, then walk over to the person with the ballot boxes who indicates which ballot goes where, put your ballot papers in the ballot boxes, smile and say, "Thankyou very much" to the electoral official and then go and pay the people from the local charity/church/primary school $2 for a sausage in bread with onions (optional) and tomato sauce. Simples.
quote:They do not care if he was anointed. They think Clinton will further attack their beleaguered Christianity.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
David was king many thousands of years ago. He had a harem! Is it really necessary to use his family life as a -good- example?
This argument only flies if you can believe that Trump is anointed by God as David was. Does he show any signs, at all, of this? This is wishful thinking.
)quote:Hard to imagine Trump writing the 51st Psalm.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
David was king many thousands of years ago. He had a harem! Is it really necessary to use his family life as a -good- example?
This argument only flies if you can believe that Trump is anointed by God as David was. Does he show any signs, at all, of this? This is wishful thinking.
quote:Except there's a big difference between an asshole with his finger on the button that can release a few thousand spears vs. an asshole with his finger on the button that can vaporize all of creation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And I suspect that this would be precisely the Christian right's argument in favour of Trump in the present case.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
quote:That just makes it harder for people to vote. If one was in a jurisdiction with a long standing problem of "vote early and vote often" then it would be another matter, but if we start insisting on ID in the UK, all we will do is drive down participation and, most likely, reduce the Labour Party's share of the vote - so watch out for that between now and 2020. (Thinking about it, as it happens, between 1988 and 1995 the only ID I had was various kinds of rail passes. I wonder if those would have been acceptable?)
Originally posted by Penny S:
I don't think photo ID an outrageous idea - and I think that our system could do with a bit of tightening up. I don't even have to take my voting card (delivered by post a few weeks in advance) to the polling station.
It was the difficulty of getting it that was a problem. As one person said - 'If you work at Walmart, when are you going to be able to get to the office?'
quote:Problem is that there are a lot of people who think just like Donald Trump does and they aren't by any means stupid. They are God-fearing, suit-wearing, hard-working, family values types and just as they would never vote for a black guy they won't vote for a woman.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let's hope this latest recoding is the point of no return for Trump. It certainly should be.
A good article.
quote:Lilbuddha has correctly summarised what I'm trying to say. People on the Christian right may not be able to justify Trump's behaviour, but they can certainly rationalise voting for him on the basis of the OT.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They do not care if he was anointed. They think Clinton will further attack their beleaguered Christianity.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
David was king many thousands of years ago. He had a harem! Is it really necessary to use his family life as a -good- example?
This argument only flies if you can believe that Trump is anointed by God as David was. Does he show any signs, at all, of this? This is wishful thinking.
quote:Perhaps not enough for him to win the popular vote. But the people don't elect the president, the Electoral College does.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
True. But not enough of them for Trump to win. Hispanics, African Americans, and women together represent a lot more than half the votes and he is going to lose out big time with them. Even if 60% of the remaining males are closet male chauvinist pigs. Which I guess they might be.
quote:So stupid, though.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Lilbuddha has correctly summarised what I'm trying to say. People on the Christian right may not be able to justify Trump's behaviour, but they can certainly rationalise voting for him on the basis of the OT.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They do not care if he was anointed. They think Clinton will further attack their beleaguered Christianity.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
David was king many thousands of years ago. He had a harem! Is it really necessary to use his family life as a -good- example?
This argument only flies if you can believe that Trump is anointed by God as David was. Does he show any signs, at all, of this? This is wishful thinking.
In which there were all sorts of bad kings, who are nonetheless portrayed as the right people for the job in preference to pagan kings offering their children to Moloch.
You don't have to see Trump as anointed; you only have to see him as the most likely route to allowing conservative DH laws to be upheld or restored.
Meanwhile I see Trump has felt it necessary to declare he won't quit over the video. Which is encouraging inasmuch as such declarations very often precede doing precisely that.
quote:Well obviously not, because that generation has been so led astray by the evil libruls that they're past redemption
Originally posted by Callan:
They've lost those wars. So they plan to die on a hill labelled "Donald Trump ought to be President of the USA"? Because, obviously, that's going to commend Christianity to the younger generation.
quote:So what you really want to see is a Trumpstamp
Originally posted by simontoad:
I would like an I Voted sticker, or maybe an animal stamp on your hand (I'm being serious here
quote:Unless they are working for InterVarsity in the near future and then they will be proven to be part of the remnant.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Well obviously not, because that generation has been so led astray by the evil libruls that they're past redemption
Originally posted by Callan:
They've lost those wars. So they plan to die on a hill labelled "Donald Trump ought to be President of the USA"? Because, obviously, that's going to commend Christianity to the younger generation.
quote:Perhaps the next popular fad with Trumpettes will be a bikini-line tattoo with an arrow pointing south saying "Trump can grab this any time he wants."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So what you really want to see is a Trumpstamp
Originally posted by simontoad:
I would like an I Voted sticker, or maybe an animal stamp on your hand (I'm being serious here
Though, accurate placement would drop it a bit further south
quote:This is probably Kerygmanial so I'll keep it brief. As I recall, Whichever prophet it was that picked Saul spent a fair bit of time begging the people of Israel to reconsider the whole king thing altogether, a d Saul's entire reign was one big "I told you so."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And I suspect that this would be precisely the Christian right's argument in favour of Trump in the present case.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
If one's priorities are wholly and existentially tied up with SCOTUS rulings and the related DH issues, I can sort of see that the candidate's moral qualities really would be secondary.
quote:1. I really, really like this.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
He's going to try to take Clinton out with one big hateful haymaker. What she has to do is rope a dope.
quote:It has been my thesis that American Christianity lost its way in our era by getting into bed with conservative politics. They got into bed with Trump and now they're screwed.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The moral bankruptcy in mousethief's linked article is truly appalling.
quote:You're still missing my point. I'm not saying how they should be interpreted but how they are likely to be interpreted. Trump's Christian right supporters don't justify his past acts - witness mousethief's linked article. They just need to believe that Trump is their best chance of having the SCOTUS they would like.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Unlike Trump's supporters, the writers of Kings recognised that being a God- appointed whatever didn't make everything you did righteous.
My point is, anybody who would use the stories of the kings as apologia that God supports such behavior in people in authority is not really reading what is written. The whole reason the stories were included was to condemn the despotic excesses of royalty.
quote:She hasn't been around much, since the convention. It is obvious that she only gets brought out when convenient, to say what the advisers put into her mouth. Does anyone blieve that she ever expresses her true feelings?
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Looking at Trump's apology:
He only apologized for the words he used. He did not apologize for his own admitted actions (which is sexual assault) and he did not apologize to his wife.
Looking at Melena's statement: she said she found his words offensive, but she has forgiven him. Again she does not mention the women he admits to assaulting.
quote:Not in public, nor in the presence of her husband.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does anyone believe that she ever expresses her true feelings?
quote:To be fair, Conservatism did not have to lead to Trump being the Republican nominee. The variables involved in getting to this point are too numerous to conclude this all was inevitable. And a lot of American Christianity was not all that happy with Trump well before this week.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:It has been my thesis that American Christianity lost its way in our era by getting into bed with conservative politics. They got into bed with Trump and now they're screwed.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The moral bankruptcy in mousethief's linked article is truly appalling.
quote:Personally, I hope some male celebrity walks up to him and grabs Donald's crotch, explaining that it's OK because "I'm famous".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seen elsewhere: "I hope someone at the town hall debate asks him when he stopped grabbing women by the crotch."
quote:Trump is attempting to say that the video doesn't represent his character. Problem is, there are enough other signals dotted through the campaign to indicate that it's entirely consistent with his character.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:I feel the need to point out that both of those anecdotes seemed to relate times when David had clearly lost the plot and needed someone else-- a prophet, a son, an advisor-- to pull him up short. The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
David being the top case in point. He took Bathsheba as his property, arranged for her husband, one of his Mighty Men, to be killed, and did nothing about the rape of Tamar by Absalom. He nevertheless goes down in OT history as one of the greatest kings in Israel.
quote:True. The excellent 538 Election Forecast website has predictions on three different sets of assumptions, the most conservative of which gives Hillary a 90 vote lead in the electoral college. And this in advance of the impact of the offensive tape. Nate Silver observes that opinion has indeed been volatile during the campaign. But Trump is significantly behind and likely to fall further behind. The Sunday debate is particularly ill-timed for him in view of the latest scandal and his poor performance last time. And he's running out of time to recover. I don't think the Wikileaks release is going to help him a lot.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Perhaps not enough for him to win the popular vote. But the people don't elect the president, the Electoral College does.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
True. But not enough of them for Trump to win. Hispanics, African Americans, and women together represent a lot more than half the votes and he is going to lose out big time with them. Even if 60% of the remaining males are closet male chauvinist pigs. Which I guess they might be.
quote:Also consistant with his character is his complete inability to hear people who try to pull him up short.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Trump is attempting to say that the video doesn't represent his character. Problem is, there are enough other signals dotted through the campaign to indicate that it's entirely consistent with his character.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:I feel the need to point out that both of those anecdotes seemed to relate times when David had clearly lost the plot and needed someone else-- a prophet, a son, an advisor-- to pull him up short. The Bible allows for the fact that kings can be total assholes at times.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
David being the top case in point. He took Bathsheba as his property, arranged for her husband, one of his Mighty Men, to be killed, and did nothing about the rape of Tamar by Absalom. He nevertheless goes down in OT history as one of the greatest kings in Israel.
quote:OMG, I hope that's a transfer, for that girl's sake.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So what you really want to see is a Trumpstamp
Originally posted by simontoad:
I would like an I Voted sticker, or maybe an animal stamp on your hand (I'm being serious here
Though, accurate placement would drop it a bit further south
)
quote:According to a few articles like
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Og--
Any idea why Assange hates the Clintons so much?
quote:Sarah Palin?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sen. John McCain has officially withdrawn his support for Trump. (Business Insider) He and his wife are going to write in the name of a deserving Republican.
(Himself?
quote:The problem for the Republicans is the base for the party is filled with other loathing. When the world is seen to be conspiring against you, against your religion, against your race, against your family, against your view of the world, its not your fault for trying to cleanse that through the best way you see.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At this moment the only hope to purify the GOP is fire. They need to see a catastrophic loss, one that cannot possibly explained away by all their usual evasions and excuses. The hope was that when Romney lost this would do it, but no. Maybe this time they will face reality.
quote:Apropos your comment, I searched for some background information on this.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
Well, in the US, I think the biggest problem at the federal level is being so partisan that the parties have to sit separately. (They used to be interspersed. Not sure when that changed, but I think it was some time after Watergate.)
quote:A majority vote of the Senate, and a willingness to weaken tradition and make it more likely that the other party will do the same against you in the future. Such a vote is sometimes referred to as "the nuclear option."
Originally posted by simontoad:
...what does it take to abolish the filibuster rule? I think it's only in the senate, but would it need like a 3/4 vote to change the rule?
quote:And it's not even the older of the two parties. The Democrats date back to the late 1820s, the Republicans to the 1850s.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
GOP. It might be old, but grand? What a degredation of a once great democracy.
quote:I think I read somewhere that Johnson had taught in hispaanic-majority schools when working as a teacher, pre-politics. So yes, he probably had pretty close contact with Mexican culture.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Given that LBJ was from Texas, he'd probably at least seen tamales eaten, even if he hadn't eaten one himself.
Presidential candidates do trip up on dealing with things outside their cultural bubble.
quote:Assange is alot like Trump, petty, vindictive and lots of women trouble. That guy needs to go face the music in Sweden.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:According to a few articles like
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Og--
Any idea why Assange hates the Clintons so much?
this one from Vox, she represents, in his mind, everything he hates about the US - two faced liberal imperialism.
In essence, better the devil you do not know then the one you do.
quote:
"Trump won't win the purity award for sure, but if biblical Christians look back throughout the bible, there were MANY men who fell short of your view of righteousness. How about David....a murderer, adulterer and he was considered a man after God's own heart."
quote:I don't believe any of our Parliaments have filibusters, but I stand to be corrected.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
Well, in the US, I think the biggest problem at the federal level is being so partisan that the parties have to sit separately. (They used to be interspersed. Not sure when that changed, but I think it was some time after Watergate.)
Whether a filibuster is good or not depends on which side of the issue you're on. "Us" = It's a dramatic way of fighting for what's good, and reining the other side. "Them" = Oh, they're just trying to get publicity.
Plus there's a thread of US culture that sees a filibuster as sort of a down-home, power-to-the-people, championing-lost-causes sort of thing. Have you ever seen the film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"? Rather naive guy winds up in Congress, trying to do the right thing. Very dramatic filibuster. There's also "Billy Jack Goes To Washington", which is pretty much the same, except Billy Jack is half Native American, and also a martial artist.
Anyway, I don't think we'll get rid of the filibuster, and I don't think we should.
Has the Aussie legislature had filibusters?
quote:I'd consider lining people who reckon Canada was never a Christian country up against a wall. They are freaking dangerous, and I am not kidding.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Yes, I edited in a 4th. For over 30 years, I have been running into single issue politics focused people among my fellow Evangelicals. They see justice in terms of certain things, not the whole. Justice for the unborn, justice for those having to live in a society accepting what they consider sin.
These people reject the notion Canada has never really been a Christian country and the US really has not scratched beyond the surface of what that means. To them, these 2 North American countries were Christian and can be returned to if we only get the right people in charge again. I would note this line of thinking can be found among non-Evangelical Christians in both countries - I have heard the same pretty much from both Catholics and others. Thus, they would support a man like Trump, flawed as he is, because he promises to give the US government the tools it needs to make the US Christian again (SCOTUS and other judge appointments).
Reality is us of a more liberal thinking also seek out leaders who can do this - but there is a line that should not be crosesd.
quote:Someone had to have sent the New York Times copies of his income taxes that they published. One of his wives perhaps?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Not in public, nor in the presence of her husband.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does anyone believe that she ever expresses her true feelings?
quote:For the record, Kelly, I wasn't calling into question the overall validity of your anecdote, I was just fine-tuning the details. I agree, it's still a relevant comparison, regardless of which POTUS it's about.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, you guys are right, the fact that I was originally told the wrong president in this story pretty much negates the point I was making. People should take Trump's sudden involvement in Christianity at face value. He's a deeply religious man. Obviously, because I got the tamal story wrong.
By the way, it's two tamales, one tamal.
quote:No problem. Reading it over, it seems that posters, myself included, were continuing with the correction even after you'd stated that you knew the story might be apocryphal. So I get how that could seem a little like a pile-on.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sorry, dude. I just got a little loopy.
And I think that is what I meant by "shaggy dog" story; I keep hearing different variations on this motif featuring different politicians and different complicated ethnic foodstuffs.
I'm totally right about "tamal", though. Screw you, spellcheck.
quote:And yet Hilary's wrongdoing (very small beer in comparison) warrants screamed insults?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now, allegedly a comment from Pence's facebook page, and in support of my take above:quote:
"Trump won't win the purity award for sure, but if biblical Christians look back throughout the bible, there were MANY men who fell short of your view of righteousness. How about David....a murderer, adulterer and he was considered a man after God's own heart."
quote:Interesting that he phrases it as "your view of righteousness". I guess cultural-relativism is not without its uses.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now, allegedly a comment from Pence's facebook page, and in support of my take above:quote:
"Trump won't win the purity award for sure, but if biblical Christians look back throughout the bible, there were MANY men who fell short of your view of righteousness. How about David....a murderer, adulterer and he was considered a man after God's own heart."
quote:Do Armani do a line in sackcloth?
Originally posted by mousethief:
David repented in ashes and sackcloth when his sexual sin was pointed out to him, and wrote a poem of contrition so powerful it is still used in worship and personal piety 2600 years later.
Your turn, Donald.
quote:Michelangelo took a shot at it.
Originally posted by simontoad:
So, who wants to see if we can find the face of the historical David.
quote:The muddy doors are gradually being opened. Condoleeza Rice and Jeb Bush have deserted Trump and it looks like Paul Ryan is wobbling.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The mud slinging will continue but that is now a side show to what is happening behind closed doors.
Jengie
quote:I reckon everyone in politics, from local govt up is well used to being called a hypocrite and have strategies for dealing with the stress it causes.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I wonder if the problem for DT is mud he has already thrown. Let me bring to mind that he has already mentioned the Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton over sexual morality. Now senior Republicans are asking "If this is at all indicative of his behaviour are we prepared to impeach him when he crosses the line?"
It is either that they need to be prepared to impeach a Republican President or give the Democrats an absolute field day of crying hypocrites at the Republican party. Now you expect hypocritical behaviour by politicians. However, this time, it is in an area where a substantial part of the electorate is not so ready to forget.
The mud slinging will continue but that is now a side show to what is happening behind closed doors.
Jengie
quote:If this hAppens, not even Mothra can save us.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have a fiver on Mike Pence being sworn in as the 45th POTUS.
quote:His suits are by Brioni. This may have contributed to the recent travails of this fashion house:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Do Armani do a line in sackcloth?
Originally posted by mousethief:
David repented in ashes and sackcloth when his sexual sin was pointed out to him, and wrote a poem of contrition so powerful it is still used in worship and personal piety 2600 years later.
Your turn, Donald.
quote:Off topic but...
Originally posted by simontoad:
...I'd consider lining people who reckon Canada was never a Christian country up against a wall. They are freaking dangerous, and I am not kidding.
quote:According to the Washington Post, there was no timing. NBC's Access Hollywood went looking for stuff on Trump 10 days ago after hearing about stuff happening during the Apprentice show, found the tapes a week ago but their lawyers took 5 days to vet them. The Washington Post got a tip, got a copy and took 5 hours and went with the story.
Originally posted by rolyn:
It was said this Campaign was set to get dirty. Looks like we're set to find out just how dirty between now and Election Day.
The carefully timed release of the shock horror grope tapes will not have come as an unexpected blow to the Trump camp. What now the audience awaits is how much dirt DT is going to try and throw back.
This is mud wrestling of the highest order
quote:Pretty sure it's already too late for that. There are some obscure rules about the role of the Electoral College in exceptional circumstances, and also things the House of Representatives can do. But realpolitik means the Presidency would go to Hillary if the Donald stood down. Even if he gets thrashed and humiliated tonight, his monumental ego will get in the way of any speedy and/or graceful withdrawal. Donald doesn't do graceful, just disgraceful.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:The muddy doors are gradually being opened. Condoleeza Rice and Jeb Bush have deserted Trump and it looks like Paul Ryan is wobbling.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The mud slinging will continue but that is now a side show to what is happening behind closed doors.
Jengie
I have a fiver on Mike Pence being sworn in as the 45th POTUS.
quote:And I heard that same story about Jimmy Carter!
Originally posted by Stetson:
A similar story I heard was about McGovern walking into a kosher deli and ordering a beef hot dog with milk(Jews can't mix meat and milk, apparently). That one seems a little far-fectched to me, because a) it seems a little too perfect, and b) who drinks milk with a hot dog?
quote:A google on "McGovern kosher deli" turned up a lot of articles mentioning the alleged incident; "Carter kosher deli", not much. The McGovern articles weren't consistent in reporting on the type of food(some said hot dog, at least one said pastrami sandwich).
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:And I heard that same story about Jimmy Carter!
Originally posted by Stetson:
A similar story I heard was about McGovern walking into a kosher deli and ordering a beef hot dog with milk(Jews can't mix meat and milk, apparently). That one seems a little far-fectched to me, because a) it seems a little too perfect, and b) who drinks milk with a hot dog?
quote:yeah, a whole other thread
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Off topic but...
Originally posted by simontoad:
...I'd consider lining people who reckon Canada was never a Christian country up against a wall. They are freaking dangerous, and I am not kidding.
Um, I don't think Canada ever was a Christian country in reality. It was started as a means to making money off of railway scams and kinda went from there. Faith had nothing to do with it. Lots of talk - little responsibility (as the residential schools stuff has shown).
quote:*shudders* only marginally better. And therefore my greatest fear-- that the GOP will put forward another morally, ethically, and cognitively challenged candidate (but one who is able to make a much better public impression) that will look good only in comparison to the Donald.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have a fiver on Mike Pence being sworn in as the 45th POTUS.
quote:Would there be anything to stop Trump fron announcing that as soon as he's sworn in, he'll resign, followed immediately by Pence being sworn in?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can tell the only way this could happen is if this person is a write-in candidate who somehow managed to come from nowhere and win across all the states. Trump's name is already on the ballot and people have already voted.
quote:You would think that "Access Hollywood," would want to bury these tapes, considering that it makes their own Billy Bush sound like the classic pandering weasel who sucks up to the bully with loud raucous laughter at every one of his offensive comments.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
NBC's Access Hollywood went looking for stuff on Trump 10 days ago after hearing about stuff happening during the Apprentice show, found the tapes a week ago but their lawyers took 5 days to vet them. The Washington Post got a tip, got a copy and took 5 hours and went with the story.
quote:The problem is, many states have already passed the time in which they allow changes to ballots, and the number of states in that state (pardon the pun) grows daily.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If Trump were forced out or did a flounce, Would Pence automatically move to the top of the ticket? Would not Cruz would be able to say that he was the runner-up in the Primaries and it should be him? Could there be a legal battle?
quote:No. The party would have to choose a new nominee, either by reconvening the convention or through the 160+ member executive committee. They might choose Pence, but they might not. I would expect that the process would not be pretty.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If Trump were forced out or did a flounce, Would Pence automatically move to the top of the ticket?
quote:All states have already finalized ballots. They had be ready for military and other voters overseas last month.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem is, many states have already passed the time in which they allow changes to ballots, and the number of states in that state (pardon the pun) grows daily.
quote:That is indeed an issue, and ensures maximal hysteria and fuss.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If Trump were forced out or did a flounce, Would Pence automatically move to the top of the ticket? Would not Cruz would be able to say that he was the runner-up in the Primaries and it should be him? Could there be a legal battle?
quote:This is basically the US version of what supporters of Jeremy Corbyn like to call 'the chicken coup'.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Would there be anything to stop Trump fron announcing that as soon as he's sworn in, he'll resign, followed immediately by Pence being sworn in?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can tell the only way this could happen is if this person is a write-in candidate who somehow managed to come from nowhere and win across all the states. Trump's name is already on the ballot and people have already voted.
I don't put much stock in the conspiracy theories(the GOP establishment was pretty hardcore against Trump in the primaries), but the idea of the candidate being forced out by emerging circumstances is a possibility that now cannot be entirely discounted.
quote:That's just painful.
Originally posted by Callan:
Light Relief.
quote:I thought you might be linking to this.
Originally posted by Callan:
Light Relief.
quote:There is no restriction on language used on the Ship provided it doesn't break the 10 Commandments and is in English, and none on language used on linked sites*.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I get that word is now part of the lexicon of this US election and its not like most of us havn't seen it before - but if this is going to continue into the work week, can we get a NSFW warning please on any gif's using it?
quote:Get away. They probably think that only the MSM elitist lizards have denied him the Mercury Prize.
Originally posted by mousethief:
One can imagine the Trump campaign sending this guy a cease-and-desist letter saying "Please stop being on our side."
quote:Can be. More often it's a small video.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Clarification - is not a gif an image? (i.e. big words more easier to be seen then text)
quote:Meanwhile I see a whole load of people who think the problem with Trump's comments is his use of the word "pussy" rather than the fact that he advocates sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because you're rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let's hope this latest recoding is the point of no return for Trump. It certainly should be.
quote:Especially coming right after we learned he likes to jump married women and grab their privates.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oh, and T followed H around the stage. Some people are referring to it as stalking.
quote:Agreed, and maybe I should strike "married" from my point above. My evangelical brethren seem to be prissy about all the wrong things. The core, essential element his comments exposed was that he doesn't think of women as human beings. And I think the same sort of thing came out in the debate when a Muslim woman asked him about Islamaphobia: He doesn't think of Muslims, Mexicans, or Syrians as people either. Even a candy company had to remind him of the difference between skittles and people.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Meanwhile I see a whole load of people who think the problem with Trump's comments is his use of the word "pussy" rather than the fact that he advocates sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because you're rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let's hope this latest recoding is the point of no return for Trump. It certainly should be.
And a whole load more who think that the problem with sexually assaulting women is that the women are related to some man, and you wouldn't want to disrespect some man's property. Rather than, you know, women being actual people...
quote:But it goes down well with his gropies ... er ... groupies
Originally posted by simontoad:
I was shocked when Trump promised to sick a special prosecutor on Clinton if he was elected. That sort of thing might be whispered between clenched teeth in a corridor in Australia, but to blatantly threaten her publicly to her face I find appalling.
Mind you, Hilary probably just rolled her eyes and thought, "Here we go again."
quote:Instinctively or deliberately I suspect it was meant to be threatening. I doubt H was threatened ... but her performance was less strong than I wanted.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
T followed H around the stage. Some people are referring to it as stalking.
quote:It shows what kind of regard he has for the rule of law.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I was shocked when Trump promised to sick a special prosecutor on Clinton if he was elected. That sort of thing might be whispered between clenched teeth in a corridor in Australia, but to blatantly threaten her publicly to her face I find appalling.
quote:Yes, re threatening. Actually, I thought she did a great job. If she did hold back (not sure if she did), I suspect it was a) to let T self-destruct; b) to keep from going shrill or really angry, because, unfortunately those things are still considered bad in a woman; and c) to keep her own balance. I think she was also wise to periodically sit down.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:Instinctively or deliberately I suspect it was meant to be threatening. I doubt H was threatened ... but her performance was less strong than I wanted.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
T followed H around the stage. Some people are referring to it as stalking.
quote:I doubt they met much if at all; Stanford has a large student body for a private school and Starr's daughter was a year later. I think a fair number of people weren't even aware (or forgot) that Starr's daughter was on campus.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Slight tangent: IIRC, Chelsea Clinton and Ken Starr's daughter wound up at Stanford at the same time. That must've been interesting. Even if they got along, people would've been expecting sparks to fly.
quote:Our two-click practice relates to images containing extreme violence, nudity, or sexually explicit visual content, not the presence of words, irrespective of their font size. If you want to moot a policy change in this respect, the Styx is the place to do so.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Clarification - is not a gif an image? (i.e. big words more easier to be seen then text)
quote:Ah. Well, it was in the news, at the time.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:I doubt they met much if at all; Stanford has a large student body for a private school and Starr's daughter was a year later. I think a fair number of people weren't even aware (or forgot) that Starr's daughter was on campus.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Slight tangent: IIRC, Chelsea Clinton and Ken Starr's daughter wound up at Stanford at the same time. That must've been interesting. Even if they got along, people would've been expecting sparks to fly.
quote:
Mr. Trump won’t actually bar us from entering the country, thank God, but there will be extreme vetting. That clears it up. I assume it’ll be a new reality TV show where they make us eat bacon to see if we are moderate.
quote:Well, if you think the Philippines and Duarte are a good example for the US to follow, which I suppose some Trump supporters may well.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Second, it only seems like the "I'd jail her" comments are bad from an anti-Trump perspective.
quote:The possibility is in the news, off and on, because they evidently hacked...I think it was Hillary's campaign. And given concerns about just close Trump and Putin are...
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Crikey hacking by the Russians. I hadn't thought of that. That would be a fantastic piece of hybrid warfare. You wouldn't even have to hack the election, just convince enough people that you might have done so...
quote:I find that a strangely apposite way of showing solidarity with Mrs Clinton.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I consider that, having voted, I do not need to watch the debate. I have a problem with bullying male voices, and cannot listen to Trump's tones for any length of time. Instead I am going to go down to the kitchen and cut up a cabbage.
quote:Yes, I understand that the USA has an independent branch of the judiciary, although there must be some links to the executive who must, in some sense, give policy, direction and urgency to the federal prosecutors. Whether that means that the Presidency could tell them to prosecute someone, I've no idea.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, if you think the Philippines and Duarte are a good example for the US to follow, which I suppose some Trump supporters may well.
Most democracies take pride in having at least a semblance of an independent judiciary.
That said, I agree this is not over till it's over. It all reminds me too much of the Brexit referendum.
quote:This, however, is not news. She has been investigated and no charges have been brought (in theory at least, you don't usually start by prosecuting, you start by investigating whether there is enough evidence to warrant prosecution).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if Trump isn't in a position to follow through with this, the fact seems to remain that it is a pretty serious thing that Clinton appears to have done.
quote:Well, see there is a possibility that there is some reticence due to her position and the fact that she's a presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This, however, is not news. She has been investigated and no charges have been brought (in theory at least, you don't usually start by prosecuting, you start by investigating whether there is enough evidence to warrant prosecution).
quote:For sure Trump is.. well, a trump. But I don't think that this necessarily clouds the facts; that someone in one of the most important roles in the US government has done something illegal that she must have known would normally accrue jail time if anyone else was found to have done it.
What is new is Trump's blatant declaration of a willingness to run roughshod over due process to jail Hillary if given half a chance. That may delight his supporters, but it should scare the shit out of anyone else.
quote:[citation needed]
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
something illegal that she must have known would normally accrue jail time if anyone else was found to have done it.
quote:That gets and deserves a
Originally posted by orfeo:
Throwing political opponents in jail is a tactic we normally associate with tinpot dictatorships and criticise. Not something we look for in the supposed "Leader of the Free World". ...
quote:To be fair, Trump is no prize either...
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, seriously, how in the name of God does the richest and most powerful nation on earth get to select such an egregious f***tard as a candidate for President?
quote:Never forget Nixon. Nor, possibly Warren Gamaliel Harding who is supposed to have said in an outbreak of honesty, "I am not fit for this office and should not be here".
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, seriously, how in the name of God does the richest and most powerful nation on earth get to select such an egregious f***tard as a candidate for President?
(*** coz we're not in Hell)
Ian J.
quote:Ha ha.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:To be fair, Trump is no prize either...
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, seriously, how in the name of God does the richest and most powerful nation on earth get to select such an egregious f***tard as a candidate for President?
quote:In the UK, there is something called 'The Hackney Cab principle' which means that you can't just turn a client away because you don't like the cut of his jib. When the serial killer Dennis Nielsen was caught his defence lawyer was Sir Ivan Lawrence, a right-wing Tory MP who was a noted advocate of the death penalty. Sir Ivan also acted for the Kray twins. This isn't because Sir Ivan* had a weakness for serial killers or gangsters. It's because a barrister's job is to give his or her counsel the best representation possible. Assuming that the same principle holds in the US you would have to be either extraordinarily ignorant or disingenuous to cite a lawyer's working for a criminal client as evidence of anything other than a career as a criminal lawyer.
I wondered who this 12 year old Kathy Shelton was and it turns out that when Hillary was a very young attorney a judge assigned her to the defense of a an accused rapist. She didn't want the job, but had to do it because of this weird thing in our country, Trump apparently never heard of, called a 'right to counsel.'
quote:Well said Mr. English. The long view. Coolidge was completely out to lunch too. And look at Dubbyer!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Never forget Nixon. Nor, possibly Warren Gamaliel Harding who is supposed to have said in an outbreak of honesty, "I am not fit for this office and should not be here".
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, seriously, how in the name of God does the richest and most powerful nation on earth get to select such an egregious f***tard as a candidate for President?
(*** coz we're not in Hell)
Ian J.
quote:The polls I have seen are saying otherwise. Trump played to his base and seems to have only won with them; he showed them that he's going to keep fighting, not slink off. Unfortunately for him, his base isn't big enough to get him elected president.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Donald won hands down last night:
quote:Sorry, gave him a peck.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
and then game him a peck on the cheek.
quote:It's also true that female criminal lawyers tend to get a lot of instructions to act for defendants in sexual assault cases. There is a perception that a woman's voice urging the innocence of an accused rapist will be heard more sympathetically than a man's.
Originally posted by Callan:
[QB]you would have to be either extraordinarily ignorant or disingenuous to cite a lawyer's working for a criminal client as evidence of anything other than a career as a criminal lawyer./QB]
quote:Won what? His base indicated on the weekend they were staying with him. He didn't win anybody outside of that. He threw red meat to his base. Nobody else was persuaded.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Donald won hands down last night:...
quote:I'd agree to a point. Polls on who won the debate aren't predictive of who will win the election, though, nor are they "who do you plan to vote for." They're simply "who do you think won." Samples may be off, of course, but still, I've seen a number of polls asking "who won," and none have shown a majority of people thinking Trump won.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've learned not to trust polls one little bit.
quote:She has learned that it is safer to keep his hands otherwise occupied when near him.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Ivanka walked up to Trump, shook his hand in a very business-like manner and then game him a peck on the cheek. Did anyone else notice that? The handshake seemed very odd to me.
quote:In Trump's case, "extraordinarily disingenuous." But no surprise there. He has shown no regard for truth during this campaign. Not that Clinton has been a second George Washington, but at least her lies are more within the traditional range of politician lies (which, sadly, we are used to). Trump's dishonesty is in a whole different range.
Originally posted by Callan:
Assuming that the same principle holds in the US you would have to be either extraordinarily ignorant or disingenuous to cite a lawyer's working for a criminal client as evidence of anything other than a career as a criminal lawyer.
quote:Correction. It was Martin60 wot said it. Here.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Won what? His base indicated on the weekend they were staying with him. He didn't win anybody outside of that. He threw red meat to his base. Nobody else was persuaded.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Donald won hands down last night:...
quote:A typical bit of Martin60 .
you can never lose underestimating your audience. Go as low as you know. They'll love you for it.
quote:Yes, that struck me straight away. Threatening to jail your opponent is not only absurd, but sinister. It does remind me of Putin, and also of some low grade hood, threatening someone.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jerry Falwell Jr. says all this videotape stuff is a plot against Trump, whom he still supports. This is from the POST and will cost you a click.
More intelligently, commentator Ezra Klein notes that Trump has promised to be a dictator, not a president. This should be a free click.
Apologies. Will be more careful.
quote:The polling so far in this election has been pretty well spot-on. If you look at the polling of the Republican primary Donald Trump pretty consistently led the pack from the moment he descended that escalator, with only a period of about two weeks last November when Ben Carson pulled even with Trump. If you were paying attention to the polls, Trump's nomination was not a surprise. If you listened to pundits who were more confident in their own expertise than what the polls were telling them you probably were surprised.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've learned not to trust polls one little bit. At the general election here in May 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and for the EU referendum they predicted, mostly, 52-48 the other way.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jerry Falwell Jr. says all this videotape stuff is a plot against Trump, whom he still supports. This is from the POST and will cost you a click.
quote:Way to be part of the problem, Jerry.
“We’re never going to have a perfect candidate unless Jesus Christ is on the ballot,” [Falwell] said. “I’ve got a wife and a daughter, and nobody wants to hear their women talked about in that manner.”
(emphasis mine)
quote:I think that would end in tears
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... given concerns about just close Trump and Putin are...
quote:Trump has managed to offend numerous athletes with that one.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"It was locker room talk"
He wasn't in a locker room when he talked about sexual assault and adultery. He isn't an athlete.
quote:Wouldn't the precedents dwell in figures like Chuck Colson and his mates? Certainly officialdom didn't protect them and rightly not. So I'm still pretty damn sure H Clinton was errant/negligent but not criminally so.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Would Hillary Clinton have been prosecuted if she was any other government official? It doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that she'd have been under investigation for mishandling official data (and possibly something worse?).
Second, should she get a pass because she's at the head of government and/or a presidential candidate? Again, I don't know - but I doubt it.
quote:It appears kiwi athletes prefer to take their antics beyond the locker room .. which point I make not merely for salacious detail, but because to my embarrassment I think Trump is reasonably accurate on that one. I dunno if there's a female equivalent.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Trump has managed to offend numerous athletes with that one.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"It was locker room talk"
He wasn't in a locker room when he talked about sexual assault and adultery. He isn't an athlete.
I loved the tweet (by an Amy Winehouse lookalike, didn't notice who and can't find it now) who waggishly declared she'd love a drink each time Trump said the words 'locker room' ("... 'tokk'" or "...banter")
quote:Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what said Kiwi athlete did, there appears to be no suggestion that it was anything other than fully consensual. It is thus utterly unlike the sort of thing Trump was talking about.
Originally posted by Zappa:
It appears kiwi athletes prefer to take their antics beyond the locker room .. which point I make not merely for salacious detail, but because to my embarrassment I think Trump is reasonably accurate on that one. I dunno if there's a female equivalent.
quote:And he's in favor of executing innocent people. I refer you back to Brenda's earlier post about how Trump is running for dictator, not president.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But surely, the scandal here is Trump saying, 'you'd be in jail'. That's not up to him, unless US jurisprudence is very different from what I assume.
quote:Fair comment ... agreed
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what said Kiwi athlete did, there appears to be no suggestion that it was anything other than fully consensual. It is thus utterly unlike the sort of thing Trump was talking about.
quote:Not really. Ryan hasn't rescinded his endorsement, he just doesn't want to appear in public with Trump. In other words, he wants to not have to deal with his party's nominee.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And now Paul Ryan jumps ship.
quote:It looks like that's how he goes about everything he does.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Trump is unwilling to accept the judgment of the Attorney-General that indicting Hillary Clinton would be a mis-application of the law, so he'll just keep trying out new Attorneys-General until he finds one who will give him the answer he wants.
quote:Not a problem Og. Your analysis was excellent. But the only thing that stopped Rob Ford was coke 'n' cancer? And middle-class white conservative women don't secretly like red meat?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Yes Martin60...I botched the original quote code without providing the name to the quotation and went back during the editing window to find the original and pulled that cut and paste bit out of somewhere I know not where.
quote:The day that Trumpettes display familiarity with "Are You Being Served" will be the day that Pope Francis espouses the prosperity gospel.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
No one is mentioning Mrs. Slocombe's double entendres about her cat from "Are You Being Served?".
quote:Aside from being a Republican, Jeff Flake seems like an OK kind of guy. But I had written to him in his capacity as "my" senator from Arizona to urge him to support hearings on Garland, and his reply was basically that he felt it his bounden duty not to support any nomination from a lame duck President. Of course, if he was man enough to change his mind about Trump, he might just be man enough to change his mind about his Constitutional duties as senator.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
U.S. Senators who have denounced or un-endorsed Trump [include] Jeff Flake. . . . If those two joined with Democrats on the issue of holding hearings for Merrick Garland, isn't that a majority?
quote:Hey Pigwidgeon, ya know what ad I got as an overlay on your link?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Melania wore a pussy bow blouse to last night's debate. [...]
quote:Not that I'm an expert, but this looks sort of fascist to me. Or something. Incredible!
Trump/Pence: It's us against the world.
quote:Kind of...Ford lost because he lost a certain % of the electorate that was willing to overlook his style until he went too far. He still had 25% of the vote before he dropped out due to his illness.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Not a problem Og. Your analysis was excellent. But the only thing that stopped Rob Ford was coke 'n' cancer? And middle-class white conservative women don't secretly like red meat?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Yes Martin60...I botched the original quote code without providing the name to the quotation and went back during the editing window to find the original and pulled that cut and paste bit out of somewhere I know not where.
quote:Aaack! My apologies!
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Hey Pigwidgeon, ya know what ad I got as an overlay on your link?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Melania wore a pussy bow blouse to last night's debate. [...]
quote:I actually meant Shipmates, or even the general population. I assume the Trump folk have PBS* disabled on their televisions -- but I absolutely love your analogy!
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:The day that Trumpettes display familiarity with "Are You Being Served" will be the day that Pope Francis espouses the prosperity gospel.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
No one is mentioning Mrs. Slocombe's double entendres about her cat from "Are You Being Served?".
quote:Sorry I don't have the sources to link to right now, but I've read that the RNC is indeed going to pull away from Trump in order to support House, Senate, and state-wide candidates instead.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Following Paul Ryan's lead, I wonder if the RNC is going to pull some other support plugs and concentrate on other candidates? That wouldn't be a great surprise. Dump Trump and look after the House and Senate Candidates instead? Their Presidential Candidate has four weeks more as a wrecking ball on the loose. That must be a really scary prospect.
What an embarrassment that man must be.
quote:Apparently there is a quite strong correlation between which Republicans have disavowed/un-endorsed/renounced/whatever Trump and how strongly their districts/states voted for Obama in 2012.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Sorry I don't have the sources to link to right now, but I've read that the RNC is indeed going to pull away from Trump in order to support House, Senate, and state-wide candidates instead.
Not just the RNC, but candidates such as Sen. John McCain (2008 Republican candidate for President) has withdrawn his support for Trump, apparently because he doesn't want his own re-election to the Senate jeopardized by being associated with him. This seems to be happening around the U.S.
quote:In what way did Ford go so far that it cost him votes? That's a genuine question. My perception over here was that nothing he said or did with regard to his lifestyle cost him politically at all. On the contrary. I'd be glad to know that it did, as the same should apply to Trump, who does make Ford look likable.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Kind of...Ford lost because he lost a certain % of the electorate that was willing to overlook his style until he went too far. He still had 25% of the vote before he dropped out due to his illness.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Not a problem Og. Your analysis was excellent. But the only thing that stopped Rob Ford was coke 'n' cancer? And middle-class white conservative women don't secretly like red meat?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Yes Martin60...I botched the original quote code without providing the name to the quotation and went back during the editing window to find the original and pulled that cut and paste bit out of somewhere I know not where.
The Red meat thing is what politicians do when they throw out something that offends others just to keep their own supporters happy.
quote:Ford's step too far was admitting he used cocaine while in office and was an addict. Until then, there was only rumours of a video. His addmiting he used was the tipping point for the public. Interestingly, the tipping point for politicians was a day later when he used the word pussey in reference not needing any because he gets enough at home. It was a vulgarity too far for them.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:In what way did Ford go so far that it cost him votes? That's a genuine question. My perception over here was that nothing he said or did with regard to his lifestyle cost him politically at all. On the contrary. I'd be glad to know that it did, as the same should apply to Trump, who does make Ford look likable.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Kind of...Ford lost because he lost a certain % of the electorate that was willing to overlook his style until he went too far. He still had 25% of the vote before he dropped out due to his illness.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Not a problem Og. Your analysis was excellent. But the only thing that stopped Rob Ford was coke 'n' cancer? And middle-class white conservative women don't secretly like red meat?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Yes Martin60...I botched the original quote code without providing the name to the quotation and went back during the editing window to find the original and pulled that cut and paste bit out of somewhere I know not where.
The Red meat thing is what politicians do when they throw out something that offends others just to keep their own supporters happy.
In what REAL psephological ways is he losing to Clinton?
quote:The reason that's not so bad for him? There are a lot of phenomenally ignorant people who get a vote.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The reason why TV debates are bad for the Tiny Fingered One? They display his phenomenal and overweening ignorance.
quote:Anybody know the % of the phenomenally ignorant that actually do vote? My sense its about the same amount as the phenomenally not ignorant but anybody got any data on this?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The reason that's not so bad for him? There are a lot of phenomenally ignorant people who get a vote.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The reason why TV debates are bad for the Tiny Fingered One? They display his phenomenal and overweening ignorance.
quote:I think you are wrong. You can say "I told you so" after his inauguration, provided you speak loudly and quickly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, no. You aren't being real. You're just being rational. That's a one legged rhetorical stool. None of this can hurt him. The way Dubbyer's mangling of English didn't. And hurt those who mocked it. "Mock him you mock ME! Mofo". Every inadequate macho male in America, INCLUDING minority, and their dependents will vote for him. Everybody loves their abuser Daddy.
There is going to be a private orgy at the ballot box.
quote:He's not the people's champion. What worries me is next time when someone goes for Trump's politics without the personality flaws and the penchant for sexual abuse.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I hope I am too, but it won't be for any of the nice bourgeois reasons given here.
As you know. This is the arena. The theatre of blood. The people's champion can do no wrong but betray them.
He hasn't.
quote:Roughly 3 out of 2?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Anybody know the % of the phenomenally ignorant that actually do vote?
quote:For people read mob. Oh yes he is. And I so want to be wrong. I so want it not to be Cloud Atlas. Ever increasing amplitude cycles of progress and fall. Wow. Gillian Anderson in Hannibal JUST said, 'Sometimes, all we can do is just watch.'.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:He's not the people's champion. What worries me is next time when someone goes for Trump's politics without the personality flaws and the penchant for sexual abuse.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I hope I am too, but it won't be for any of the nice bourgeois reasons given here.
As you know. This is the arena. The theatre of blood. The people's champion can do no wrong but betray them.
He hasn't.
quote:Brenda, stop thinking like an enlightened human being and projecting it. NOBODY gives a shit. This is visceral, testicular TV. Ignorance are us, mofo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The reason why TV debates are bad for the Tiny Fingered One? They display his phenomenal and overweening ignorance. How Hillary keeps from laughing in his face is a wonder to me.
quote:Brenda, misogyny is the DOMINANT miso. Because it is in sufficient women.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another fine article from New York Magazine delineating the bone-deep misogyny of the GOP. It will not take very much now, for the party to lose the votes of the majority of American women. And if they lose us, they are lost. There are more women than men in the US, and they vote.
quote:... okay ... so I'm beginning to glean that this wasn't a retrospective about Gerald Ford?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ford's step too far was admitting he used cocaine while in office and was an addict. Until then, there was only rumours of a video. His addmiting he used was the tipping point for the public. Interestingly, the tipping point for politicians was a day later when he used the word pussey in reference not needing any because he gets enough at home. It was a vulgarity too far for them.
quote:I've been thinking for a while that Trump resembles Rob Ford.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Rob Ford, former mayor of...Toronto (?), Canada. Got into a mess of trouble, a few years ago.
quote:FiveThirtyEight.com currently puts the odds of the Democrats gaining [marginal] control of the Senate just shy of 53%.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Given a Hilary victory, do people think the Democrats will be able to get control of Congress?
quote:I'm sure he's wrong. Barring a cataclysmic event (assassination, for instance), Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. Looking just at the rhetoric, as Martin60 seems to be doing, is making the same mistake Trump is making by thinking that he can win by making speeches at rallies and shooting off his mouth on Twitter. But rallies and tweets don't get out the vote. Data-driven phone calls and door-knocking do. Forget the rhetoric, and look at the numbers. Trump's ground game pales in comparison to Clinton's. She is rising in the polls, right when early voting is starting. And all that comes on top of the distinct advantage she starts with in the electoral college because the Democrats hold more safe votes there.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:I think you are wrong. You can say "I told you so" after his inauguration, provided you speak loudly and quickly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, no. You aren't being real. You're just being rational. That's a one legged rhetorical stool. None of this can hurt him. The way Dubbyer's mangling of English didn't. And hurt those who mocked it. "Mock him you mock ME! Mofo". Every inadequate macho male in America, INCLUDING minority, and their dependents will vote for him. Everybody loves their abuser Daddy.
There is going to be a private orgy at the ballot box.
quote:Baloney. The gender gap in American elections has been growing for decades, and it will be bigger than ever this year. The only tranche of women Trump will win are white women who didn't go to college. He will lose with college-educated white women and all other women. Women are 53% of the American electorate, and we don't hate ourselves as much as you think.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Brenda, misogyny is the DOMINANT miso. Because it is in sufficient women.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another fine article from New York Magazine delineating the bone-deep misogyny of the GOP. It will not take very much now, for the party to lose the votes of the majority of American women. And if they lose us, they are lost. There are more women than men in the US, and they vote.
quote:Judging by the snippets of Clinton's speeches to her paymasters, I mean the financial institutions, that were released last week I don't think she'll be the one to do so. That's not to say that Trump would either.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or will someone actually do something about the problems that have led them to such a pretty pass and maybe even get them to stop voting against their own interests?
quote:What is this weird obsession with trying to pretend there is a comparison?
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Judging by the snippets of Clinton's speeches to her paymasters, I mean the financial institutions, that were released last week I don't think she'll be the one to do so. That's not to say that Trump would either.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or will someone actually do something about the problems that have led them to such a pretty pass and maybe even get them to stop voting against their own interests?
quote:Good quote. But it will be a cold day in hell, re the GOP and inclusivity.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought RuthW's summary was first class. I heard a quotable thing from a Toby Ziegler/Leo McGarry discussion in a West Wing episode yesterday. Slight paraphrase
TZ "Party Disagreements are good. They lead to arguments. Arguments are good.
LM "But only if they lead to statesmanship. Otherwise it's just - theatre"
The GOP needs to ditch implacability politics and start on the journey back to inclusivity.
[Edited to correct quote]
quote:But the Whigs and their Republican predeccesors were pretty heavily backed by the railrod industry. Lincoln himself did a lot of legal work for the rail barons before going into politics, though admittedly he also took cases against them.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The Republicans of Lincoln's time were the party of the little guy, not big business interests. Much changed in both the Dems and the Republicans over the next 70 years but the big business interests involvement has never really left the Dems either.
quote:That's freaky, was just watching that same episode at the weekend...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought RuthW's summary was first class. I heard a quotable thing from a Toby Ziegler/Leo McGarry discussion in a West Wing episode yesterday. Slight paraphrase
TZ "Party Disagreements are good. They lead to arguments. Arguments are good.
LM "But only if they lead to statesmanship. Otherwise it's just - theatre"
The GOP needs to ditch implacability politics and start on the journey back to inclusivity.
[Edited to correct quote]
quote:How the fuck do you read this as some apologia for Trump unless you are actively trying to read the worst into any criticism of Clinton?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What is this weird obsession with trying to pretend there is a comparison?
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Judging by the snippets of Clinton's speeches to her paymasters, I mean the financial institutions, that were released last week I don't think she'll be the one to do so. That's not to say that Trump would either.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or will someone actually do something about the problems that have led them to such a pretty pass and maybe even get them to stop voting against their own interests?
Clinton is a little too much business as usual. Trump is a giant ball of unstable paranoia with the self-control of a 3 year old child.
Not to mention that his business style is to burn down the building and escape before the firemen arrive.
quote:Also, Nate Silver has pointed out that the polls would have to be significantly more wrong than the Brexit polls were for Trump to win as things stand now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The polling so far in this election has been pretty well spot-on. ...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've learned not to trust polls one little bit. At the general election here in May 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and for the EU referendum they predicted, mostly, 52-48 the other way.
I'd argue that the polls are one of the few things about this election that you should trust.
quote:Also, Nate Silver has pointed out that the polls would have to be significantly more wrong than the Brexit polls were for Trump to win as things stand now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The polling so far in this election has been pretty well spot-on. ...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've learned not to trust polls one little bit. At the general election here in May 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and for the EU referendum they predicted, mostly, 52-48 the other way.
I'd argue that the polls are one of the few things about this election that you should trust.
quote:It's possible you can't get Trump's politics without the personality flaws and the penchant for sexual abuse. It might be a package.
Originally posted by Callan:
What worries me is next time when someone goes for Trump's politics without the personality flaws and the penchant for sexual abuse.
quote:This seems to be a modern phenomenon. Nixon lost to JFK in 1960, but won in 68. Dewey lost to both FDR and Harry Truman. William Jennings Bryan lost three elections. Grover Cleveland lost before he won, as did Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, James Munroe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. (Although the last few aren't really fair comparisons.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Besides which, normal presidential candidates without the personality flaws, once they've won the nomination, had a shot at the Presidency, and lost, don't try for the nomination again.
quote:Except for when he's going after Paul Ryan, apparently. Because as much as he knows what message his followers want to hear from now on (regardless of whether that message has any chance at this point of pulling in any more support), he just can't resist trying to completely ruin someone who he thinks has disrespected him.
Originally posted by Twilight:
It points to a shift in his emphasis toward all Hillary hate, all the time.
quote:In a similar vein:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The West Wing is excellent for good quotes. What's next?
quote:New Hampshire? New Hampshire doesn't allot electoral votes by congressional district. The statewide winner gets all 4 electoral votes. It's Maine and Nebraska that allot some votes by congressional district.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So where are the battleground states this time around? My own cribbing from Nate Silver gives me an estimate of eight states whose electoral votes are 'in play', plus two congressional districts. Those states, listed in order of decreasing Republican-ness in the 2012 election, are Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado*, Iowa, and Nevada. Combined with the Second Congressional Districts of both Maine and New Hampshire which could also go either way, these account for 112 electoral votes.
quote:That's hard to say. It's known that most Mormons have a strong, almost visceral, dislike of Trump. The problem is that Utah is such an historically strong Republican state that polling there has been infrequent this election cycle. The most recent poll of the state was conducted by the Salt Lake Tribune and covered a period from September 12-19. In other words, before the Access Hollywood tape, before the revelations about Trump's tax returns, and before any of the debates. That poll gave Trump a lead of 9 percentage points, which sounds pretty strong until you put it in the context of Romney carrying Utah by 48 points and McCain taking the state by 35 points.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Utah may not be safe for Trump. The Mormons have had enough of the moron.
quote:You are correct. I meant "Nebraska", not New Hampshire. I had New Hampshire on my mind because it had recently moved out of the battleground category.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:New Hampshire? New Hampshire doesn't allot electoral votes by congressional district. The statewide winner gets all 4 electoral votes. It's Maine and Nebraska that allot some votes by congressional district.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So where are the battleground states this time around? My own cribbing from Nate Silver gives me an estimate of eight states whose electoral votes are 'in play', plus two congressional districts. Those states, listed in order of decreasing Republican-ness in the 2012 election, are Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado*, Iowa, and Nevada. Combined with the Second Congressional Districts of both Maine and New Hampshire which could also go either way, these account for 112 electoral votes.
quote:By normal people, you mean the ones that were supporting Cruz?
Originally posted by simontoad:
Someone asked who could possibly be the next Republican candidate, uniting the Trump Rump with the normal people who make up the rest of the Republican Party.
quote:That video won't play in this part of the world.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Someone asked who could possibly be the next Republican candidate, uniting the Trump Rump with the normal people who make up the rest of the Republican Party. I believe that the solution is Ula Falanga
quote:I did not say or think it is an apologia for Trump. My comment was not truly directed at you in particular. And there are plenty of things to criticise Clinton for.
Originally posted by Prester John:
How the fuck do you read this as some apologia for Trump unless you are actively trying to read the worst into any criticism of Clinton?
quote:Yeah, give us a clue. Is Falanga her surname or her politics?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That video won't play in this part of the world.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Someone asked who could possibly be the next Republican candidate, uniting the Trump Rump with the normal people who make up the rest of the Republican Party. I believe that the solution is Ula Falanga
quote:Yet you quoted me. Yes Trump is a horrible, horrible candidate. That doesn't mean Clinton now has a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to pointing out her failings. It is this kind of uncritical acceptance of the least worst option that does us no favors. That's the kind of thinking behind providing Obama with a Nobel Peace Price early in his first term. He was the anti-Bush. Look how that turned out. Libya is a basket case. It also fails to recognize the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution that is supposed to serve as a bulwark against some lunatic becoming president. This isn't your Facebook feed- you can turn down the rhetoric.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I did not say or think it is an apologia for Trump. My comment was not truly directed at you in particular. And there are plenty of things to criticise Clinton for.
Just saying there is no real comparison and that anything which distracts from Trumpelstiltskin being the most unqualified major party candidate in US history does the US and the rest of the world a disservice.
quote:LOL!
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Yeah, give us a clue. Is Falanga her surname or her politics?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That video won't play in this part of the world.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Someone asked who could possibly be the next Republican candidate, uniting the Trump Rump with the normal people who make up the rest of the Republican Party. I believe that the solution is Ula Falanga
quote:I'm not endorsing uncritical acceptance. I've spoken to a number of Americans who are undecided because they do not feel comfortable voting for Clinton even though they understand how unqualified Trump is. There reason for indecision isn't that they are not sure who is worse, it is because of their view of Clinton.
Originally posted by Prester John:
That doesn't mean Clinton now has a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to pointing out her failings. It is this kind of uncritical acceptance of the least worst option that does us no favors.
quote:Other than using a portmanteau in reference to Trump, It was a simple statement. I am far from an expert in US political history, but can you name someone less qualified?
This isn't your Facebook feed- you can turn down the rhetoric.
quote:I'd like to thank Brenda for her links, too. I used to get up in the morning and go to Google News, now I just come here and read Brenda's links. All filtered for me to my tastes. Of course those links lead to more links. I really must get a life, but not just yet.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I would like to thank Brenda for her link posting, which reminds me of all the Americans who are not Trumpistas -
quote:Don't know that nuance is needed. If I may abuse Samuel Beckett:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not an Endtimes type of person. But the world is in a fucked up place at the moment and the road out is a difficult and nuanced one.
quote:*From the aptly titled 'The End'.
A small boy, stretching out his hands and looking at Donald Trump, asked his mother how such a thing was possible. Fuck off, she said.*
quote:It says something that when he makes a list of reasons Trump ought never to be President, 'hinting at the assassination of his opponent' has fallen off the bottom of the list.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The incomparable John Scalzi says it perfectly.
quote:For me, as a (very) interested outsider is not that people are pointing out Clinton's failings, it's the huge amount of myth that surrounds her. I genuinely have not found anything against Clinton that turned out to be true beyond her being too close to big business and having an email server. And I'm very left wing compared to the USofA.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Yes Trump is a horrible, horrible candidate. That doesn't mean Clinton now has a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to pointing out her failings. It is this kind of uncritical acceptance of the least worst option that does us no favors.
quote:The big problem for HC goes way back to when the lewensky scandal came out. Many suspected she played the forgiving wife in order to further her own political career. Now, with other stuff coming out, that same many have been given reason to wonder what other lengths she has gone to in order to become the main contender in the race for the Whitehouse.
Originally posted by Penny S:
.......a link someone posted elsewhere showing the sheer hatred some feel for Clinton, and why she, despite all that is coming out about Trump, is much, much worse. I didn't, though, actually learn why she is.
quote:Should be required reading for GOP grandees. Particularly the bit about the monster which is the GOP base, and the fact that the Donald stole it.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The incomparable John Scalzi says it perfectly.
quote:One guy in Ohio is a sign of an apocalyptic trend?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Just watched a black guy in Youngstown. He'll vote Trump.
....
quote:And so what if she did? Who cares? As the wounded spouse, I think she's entitled to whatever concessions she is able to find in a pretty crappy situation.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:The big problem for HC goes way back to when the lewensky scandal came out. Many suspected she played the forgiving wife in order to further her own political career. Now, with other stuff coming out, that same many have been given reason to wonder what other lengths she has gone to in order to become the main contender in the race for the Whitehouse.[/i]
Originally posted by Penny S:
.......a link someone posted elsewhere showing the sheer hatred some feel for Clinton, and why she, despite all that is coming out about Trump, is much, much worse. I didn't, though, actually learn why she is.
quote:Yes sir.
Turning down the rhetoric all round might be a good idea at this point. Or a visit to Hell for aggrieved parties.
quote:That depends where they live thanks to the electoral college and voting habits in certain states. Certain states, such as California, are a lock for the Democrats. I can vote for Johnson, or anyone really and it wouldn't matter. If I lived in a battleground state that would be a different story.
But there is only one choice on offer, Clinton or Trump. Not voting, or voting for a third party, is in a very real way voting for the candidate you like least.
quote:Ross Perot, perhaps, in recent memory. Huey "The Kingfish" Long in modern history. There were others, such as FDR, who held a tremendous amount of power and influence during a particularly dark period of history. Even then there were checks and balances by the other branches of government. A Trump presidency would face a hostile Congress, whatever it's composition.
Other than using a portmanteau in reference to Trump, It was a simple statement. I am far from an expert in US political history, but can you name someone less qualified?
I am not an Endtimes type of person. But the world is in a fucked up place at the moment and the road out is a difficult and nuanced one. Clinton might not be the right person to helm the US at the moment, but Trump is very definitely the wrong one.
quote:There is a lot of mindless propaganda out there and some of it is probably fueled by misogyny. Having said that, she has no issues with military interventions and drone strikes. In the emails I mentioned she suggested that Wall Street insiders were the best people to advise as to how the government should oversee the financial industry. Since this was said post the Great Recession the nicest way to interpret this is incredibly naïve. She has a reputation of not playing well with others. The pardon scandal at the end of her husband's last term didn't reflect well on her either. The DNC really did not pick a very good candidate.
For me, as a (very) interested outsider is not that people are pointing out Clinton's failings, it's the huge amount of myth that surrounds her. I genuinely have not found anything against Clinton that turned out to be true beyond her being too close to big business and having an email server. And I'm very left wing compared to the USofA.
quote:Any president has the power to pardon any federal crime, except one determined through impeachment.
Originally posted by Huia:
Does an outgoing President have the power to pardon anyone convicted of any crime?
quote:
During a campaign event Tuesday night, Donald Trump urged his supporters to vote on November 28. "Go and register. Make sure you get out and vote November 28," the GOP presidential nominee said in Panama City, Florida. (Election Day is November 8. )
quote:Had to read Wiki on these two.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Ross Perot, perhaps, in recent memory. Huey "The Kingfish" Long in modern history.
Originaly posted by lilBuddha:
I am far from an expert in US political history, but can you name someone less qualified?
quote:You are saying FDR was less competent than Trump? Seriously? One of the men that steered the free world through WWII? The one who helped end the Great Depression and made the National Park system accessible to ordinary folk, the one that put millions of people to work, that FDR?
There were others, such as FDR, who held a tremendous amount of power and influence during a particularly dark period of history. Even then there were checks and balances by the other branches of government.
quote:With a Republican congress, they could get things done as long as they stroked his ego. He doesn't appear to have enough stamina or patience to properly govern.
A Trump presidency would face a hostile Congress, whatever it's composition.
quote:Perot was erratic, much like Trump. The first time he ran he dropped out of the race and then re-entered. He also claimed that the Bush administration bugged his daughter's wedding. He had a grudge against the Bush family and ran against him as an act of revenge. Huey Long was the very definition of corrupt. He was a demagogue and considered very dangerous. Louisiana witnessed some of the worst political violence at that time. The sort of violence that people are accusing Trump of stoking. Maybe not as unqualified but definitely close.
Had to read Wiki on these two.
Perot appears to be an actually successful businessman, instead of one who made less than casual investing would have. Not that business = government, but that is one of Trump's claims.
Long was a successful politician. He actually accomplished the some of the things he set out to do. He does appear to have been a colourful character and perhaps not completely ethical. Nothing I read at all makes him seem less qualified than Trump.
quote:Less competent? No. But he was very powerful. Congress was passing laws without any serious opposition at his say so. My point about FDR is that even when we had a very powerful person in office there were still successful checks and balances that prevented him from getting his way all of the time. If that can happen with FDR I would expect the same to happen with someone far less competent, such as Trump.
You are saying FDR was less competent than Trump? Seriously? One of the men that steered the free world through WWII? The one who helped end the Great Depression and made the National Park system accessible to ordinary folk, the one that put millions of people to work, that FDR?
quote:I don't see how that disproves my point. He would be effectively neutered.
With a Republican congress, they could get things done as long as they stroked his ego. He doesn't appear to have enough stamina or patience to properly govern.
If they did not manage him correctly, or if the Democrats gained control, nothing would get done.
quote:Problem solved!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Donald Trump tells supporters to vote on November 28:
quote:
During a campaign event Tuesday night, Donald Trump urged his supporters to vote on November 28. "Go and register. Make sure you get out and vote November 28," the GOP presidential nominee said in Panama City, Florida. (Election Day is November 8. )
quote:Not sure where you get the idea that I think Trump is presentable on the world stage. I just don't think Clinton is above criticism just because her competitor is a double louse. I could ask, does someone who advocates a drone strike on Julian Assange deserve to be on the world stage? As for my vote, I live in a blue state. Hell will freeze over before Trump wins in California. Thanks to the electoral college my refusal to vote for Clinton won't make a bit of difference.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Prester John
Does the concept of which candidate would best represent the USA on the world stage come into the reckoning?
Is there any doubt about which candidate would do better in this respect?
It is a painful morning for Giants fans. Another blown save. And no further chance of recovery. The even numbered year record also blown. A sad day for loyal fans.
What constitutes a save, or a blown save, in this election if your vote may count? Well, I've said it earlier. If you see that the choice is between a louse and a double louse, vote louse. You never know. It might help avoid a very painful blown save.
I have this gruesome image of President Trump meeting our Queen. And the Queen reminding him that she is well over 35 ...
No, it must not happen. If in any doubt, she should be saved from any such encounter. That kindness would be appreciated.
quote:If he is managed by Republicans, he effectively abdicates one third of the US government. And the Republican having unfettered control is not good for the majority of Americans.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I don't see how that disproves my point. He would be effectively neutered.
quote:Gridlock can be a good thing at times. Executive Action can be overturned by Congress and the Supreme Court. Not sure what your Twilight reference is about.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:If he is managed by Republicans, he effectively abdicates one third of the US government. And the Republican having unfettered control is not good for the majority of Americans.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I don't see how that disproves my point. He would be effectively neutered.
If the Democrats are in control, a stagnant political system is not a good one and I don't see much chance of cooperation.
And then there is executive action. Still do not see anyone less qualified to have that power than a man who tweets relationship advice to the stars of Twilight.
quote:Oh, Both Sides Are Bad!!
Originally posted by Prester John:
I could ask, does someone who advocates a drone strike on Julian Assange deserve to be on the world stage?
quote:This seems quite dismissive of people who have conscientious objections to the Democratic candidates repeated and obvious ties to big business, neo-liberal economics and the industrial-military complex.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh, Both Sides Are Bad!!
Clinton's faults don't excuse Trump's.
But there is a difference between an occasional comment clearly made in jest and such comments being an entire modus operandi of deniable incitements to hatred and violence.
quote:This thread is about this election. How to solve the broader problems of US politics is a much wider-ranging problem.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If I had the misfortune of living in the USA, I'd not vote for the idiot, but I'd not want to vote for Clinton either. And I'd be getting rather pissy with people who told me that it was down to me to keep the little Hitler character out of the Oval Office.
quote:Is there a plot afoot to bring us wild colonials back into the fold?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
God save the Queen. With a bit of human help. And in the process, save the USA from a lot of grief and embarrassment.
Don't think it would work. But if you could persuade the micronation of Sealand to put Trump on their enchanting oil rig, we'd be ever so grateful.
quote:HM has entertained the Ceascescus at the Palace, given them dinner, bed and breakfast as well. And others as well, Nixon and his family in the days when Dickie and Pat were doing their level best to marry the PoW to their daughter (or vice versa, they were not fussed which way around it went), the Reagans and a host of others. She would do that if she were so advised, but never, ever, let on her true feelings beyond an extremely limited range.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I have this gruesome image of President Trump meeting our Queen. And the Queen reminding him that she is well over 35 ...
No, it must not happen. If in any doubt, she should be saved from any such encounter. That kindness would be appreciated.
quote:Aha! Just another example of how the Democrats are rigging the election against Trump! They deliberately moved election day just to fool Trump supporters!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Donald Trump tells supporters to vote on November 28:
quote:
During a campaign event Tuesday night, Donald Trump urged his supporters to vote on November 28. "Go and register. Make sure you get out and vote November 28," the GOP presidential nominee said in Panama City, Florida. (Election Day is November 8. )
quote:Then they should have voted in the primary. The presidential election cycle is not just one election.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which, I think, is a real problem with democracy. No amount of blaming Green voters for the election of GW Bush changes the fact that there is a relatively large proportion of the population of the US who do not want to vote Dem or GOP but are being pushed into voting for the least-worst candidate - who then is very likely to push forwards a platform based on that shaky mandate which isn't what they stand for and isn't why they voted for them.
quote:Brexit.
Originally posted by Prester John:
As for my vote, I live in a blue state. Hell will freeze over before Trump wins in California. Thanks to the electoral college my refusal to vote for Clinton won't make a bit of difference.
quote:Yes. No matter how discouraged I get I still show up. I've only missed two special, non-general elections in my life. California always has a ton of ballot measures.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Prester John, even though California is very likely to vote for Clinton, will you be turning up to vote in the other elections being run that day?
quote:It's all you can do. No candidate is pure gold. Those who decry voting for the lesser evil are either new voters or hopelessly goggle-eyed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep chatting to people on the left who seem to find Clinton so awful, that they refuse to vote for her. However, voting for the lesser evil is quite common in elections, isn't it?
quote:
Brexit.
Are you saying CA should leave the Union or that there is a possibility that CA will turn red this election cycle and I should vote for Clinton?
quote:I'm saying that thinking "I can vote against it and there will still be enough 'yea' votes that it won't matter" is a dangerous way to think, as demonstrated by Brexit. If enough people take this attitude, then there won't be enough 'yea' votes, and the protest-voters (or protest-non-voters) will win the day.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Brexit.
quote:I do go out and vote, after researching the issues, reading the ballot measures and watching the primary and general election debates. I just don't always choose one of the two main candidates.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From where I'm sitting, he's saying what I'm saying, which is that getting out and voting is important, in the long term as well as in the short term, even if you think the result is a foregone conclusion, if only to exercise your democratic rights.
It's failure to be involved in the democratic process at all levels on an ongoing basis that leads to nightmares like Brexit.
[x-post]
quote:If they insist upon voting on Nov. 28, I think we should let them.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Donald Trump tells supporters to vote on November 28:
quote:
During a campaign event Tuesday night, Donald Trump urged his supporters to vote on November 28. "Go and register. Make sure you get out and vote November 28," the GOP presidential nominee said in Panama City, Florida. (Election Day is November 8. )
quote:Well then all well and good.
Originally posted by Prester John:
I do go out and vote, after researching the issues, reading the ballot measures and watching the primary and general election debates. I just don't always choose one of the two main candidates.
quote:tangent/
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In a two party system like that in America, the time to pick a third party candidate is not at the voting booth, but a year or two prior.
quote:Unless you live in a state that has an open primary the only time that you can vote for a third party candidate versus the Dem/Repub candidate is at the voting booth.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In a two party system like that in America, the time to pick a third party candidate is not at the voting booth, but a year or two prior.
quote:Here's a thought to keep you up at night.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Brexit.
Originally posted by Prester John:
As for my vote, I live in a blue state. Hell will freeze over before Trump wins in California. Thanks to the electoral college my refusal to vote for Clinton won't make a bit of difference.
quote:France is a multi-party system, the US isn't.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Despite that risk, I'm considering voting for him in the first round to help send a message that "we need a new political movement ready for 2022".
quote:What I'm saying is for a third-party candidate to be viable, they need to raise awareness and support well before the election. They need to dominate attention. That is not something one could say about any of the three running now.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Unless you live in a state that has an open primary the only time that you can vote for a third party candidate versus the Dem/Repub candidate is at the voting booth.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In a two party system like that in America, the time to pick a third party candidate is not at the voting booth, but a year or two prior.
quote:The polls weren't *that* far off over Brexit. If the pollsters have called California wrong then I think no-one will ever trust an opinion poll ever again. With that margin of error you might as well have Mystic Meg as an election pundit based on the moon moving into Scorpio or whatever.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Here's a thought to keep you up at night.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Brexit.
Originally posted by Prester John:
As for my vote, I live in a blue state. Hell will freeze over before Trump wins in California. Thanks to the electoral college my refusal to vote for Clinton won't make a bit of difference.
If Clinton's 20% polling lead in California (Real Clear Politics, four way election,) is a Brexit type illusion, she's in a heap of trouble. If Trump has enough sleeper voters to make California close, imagine what he will do in states where identical polling methods show a close race. He'd be looking at a 1984 / 1964 kind of night. Maybe she wins Vermont and Massachusetts.
quote:The American system is really built for the existence of exactly two major parties. It's the inevitable outcome of the winner-take-all, majority rule system. There are some parallels to coalition-building in parliamentary systems, except that in the U.S. the coalitions are built ex ante instead of ex post. The two major parties are not ideological entities, like a lot of European parties (though the Republicans have moved a good distance towards enforced ideological purity lately), but rather coalitions of different interest groups. The goal is to collect the allegiance of enough interest groups to form a majority without including enough contradictory interests that the party is stymied by internal divisions.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I'm saying is for a third-party candidate to be viable, they need to raise awareness and support well before the election. They need to dominate attention. That is not something one could say about any of the three running now.
) This view seems to be more about maintaining some narcissistic view of personal purity rather than achieving any kind of policy outcome. It's notable (though not really unexpected) that this view is most common about those who will be least affected by bad policy outcomes.
quote:Well, white men at least. Trump's support among non-white men is abysmal.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The flip side of my previous link: Polling that analyzes why men like Trump.
quote:I wonder how long the press will keep finding this stuff out. If Trump wins, I suspect, journalists will be encouraged to spike interesting stories of this nature. If he loses, and I were a betting man, I'd put a tenner on his being in jail by the time the 2020 election comes around.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, for sure. I am impressed with those black districts in which the candidate has zero support. None! And that's with a plus or minus three in the arithmetic!
This is from Salon, a discussion of Trump as the epitome of white privilege. It is impossible to imagine a black or female candidate doing any of the things he has done with impunity.
And a further refinement on the dressing room tale, the Teen USA pageant involved girls aged 15-19. Trump supporters suggest that they are in collusion.
quote:More relevantly, it kind of begs the question of what the opposition research teams for all the other Republican primary candidates were doing in the fall of 2015?
Originally posted by Callan:
I wonder how long the press will keep finding this stuff out.
quote:I bet there are a lot of awkward silences at Bush family gatherings right now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:More relevantly, it kind of begs the question of what the opposition research teams for all the other Republican primary candidates were doing in the fall of 2015?
Originally posted by Callan:
I wonder how long the press will keep finding this stuff out.
quote:Now that you mention it, the Trump campaign makes a lot more sense if you simply assume that no one on Team Trump knows that the Nineteenth Amendment has been ratified.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Laddish son Eric Trump claims they have the momentum and victory is near. Unfortunately the poll map he uses is the one from Nate Silver's site, that shows the results if no women vote at all. Or, as the headline says, he's basically wrong about everything.
quote:Apart from Billy, there is a darn good chance they will be happy enough. Jeb is looking mighty electable in 2020 - whether he actually gets nominated is another issue of course but there is some doubt that the Trump primary supporters are going to stick around for anybody else.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:I bet there are a lot of awkward silences at Bush family gatherings right now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:More relevantly, it kind of begs the question of what the opposition research teams for all the other Republican primary candidates were doing in the fall of 2015?
Originally posted by Callan:
I wonder how long the press will keep finding this stuff out.
quote:Big difference between polling on one question without parties across one country vs. polling multiple states who contribute to a win through the electoral college system.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You Yanks won't remember the Brexit vote. It even stunned the people campaigning for it. Especially those that didn't mean it.
He can win.
quote:Any major party presidential nominee has a non-trivial chance of victory. Trump's odds don't look good though. He's about where McCain was in at this point in 2008, and in a much worse position than either Romney in 2012 or Kerry in 2004. So yes, we're not talking about a statistical impossibility, but at present a Trump presidency seems about as likely as losing at Russian roulette. Whether you consider 1-in-6 odds to be 'low' or 'way too high' is a matter of how catastrophic you regard the results of that 1-in-6 chance.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You Yanks won't remember the Brexit vote. It even stunned the people campaigning for it. Especially those that didn't mean it.
He can win.
quote:I'm impressed by the psephological detail you put forward to back up that contention Martin.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You Yanks won't remember the Brexit vote. It even stunned the people campaigning for it. Especially those that didn't mean it.
He can win.
quote:You're just making the November 9 "I told you so" even sweeter - keep it up!
Originally posted by Martin60:
Got any better entrails?
quote:EXACTLY! It's pure superstition on my part. I didn't get upset about Brexit. I should have done. I just bowed to the will of the people.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You're just making the November 9 "I told you so" even sweeter - keep it up!
Originally posted by Martin60:
Got any better entrails?
Or supply real evidence for your claim. Bad polling in the UK referendum isn't applicable to the US presidential election.
quote:Where/when else would you expect to vote?
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Unless you live in a state that has an open primary the only time that you can vote for a third party candidate versus the Dem/Repub candidate is at the voting booth.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In a two party system like that in America, the time to pick a third party candidate is not at the voting booth, but a year or two prior.
quote:Ice skates! Get yer ice skates here!
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
My friends, hell has frozen over.
Glenn Beck says opposing Trump is a moral imperative.
<goes for a lie down and a glass of water>
quote:That's encouraging, but keep in mind that none of Trump's campaign successes have followed precedent.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
FWIW, Nate Silver says that although it is notionally possible that Trump could turn it around, there is no precedent statistically for it.
quote:sad but scarily true
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
none of Trump's campaign successes have followed precedent.
quote:This man is beyond sick.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Finally, a number of fresh allegations have been made about Tiny Fingers groping women. A roundup of all the allegations of this day. More tomorrow, I do not doubt.
quote:Don't know about other necks of other woods, but nobody around me is gloating. Bonding over common outrage, maybe, encouraging each other, rallying each other, but there's no sense that anyone thinks it's safe to rest.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Given how Trump appears under the spotlight, it is good that Clinton is so far ahead. But it is premature to gloat. We still haven't had a cameo appearance by Bill Clinton's penis. I'm sure the Trump supporters are busy scouring the bushes for evidence of scandal.
quote:This. In spades.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I'm definitely in the Toby Ziegler camp. Don't open the champagne until the votes are counted, the threat of legal action goes away and the concession speech has been heard.
quote:The Jimmy Saville case shows just how protected rich and powerful men are from accusations of sexual misdemeanor. The fact that they wouldn't be believed and could be sued prevented most coming forward at the time or even years later.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now the New York Times has video tapes of two women who report Trump allegedly groping them. There is also another woman in Palm Springs who claims Trump groped her when she was a receptionist in the Trump Tower. MSNBC is also reporting that a number of contestants on a Miss Teen USA pageant allege he walked in on them during a wardrobe change during the contest--they said the were in partial undress or naked when he walked in.
In other words, this man is proving to be a sexual predator.
quote:I guess that in theory the primary system (which we don't really have this side of the pond) allows the party members to scrutinise potential candidates and pick the best one.
Originally posted by Sarasa:
It's rather late in the day to ask this, but how did Trump end up as a possible candidate in the first place? Can anyone decide to stand for as a Republican or Democrat without some sort of endorsement from their party?
As you can gather I have only the haziest ideas on American politics.
quote:Not sure how balanced this is, but it sounds entirely plausible to me, and could well apply to some of the unpleasant political situations on this side of the pond too ...
Originally posted by Sarasa:
It's rather late in the day to ask this, but how did Trump end up as a possible candidate in the first place? Can anyone decide to stand for as a Republican or Democrat without some sort of endorsement from their party?
As you can gather I have only the haziest ideas on American politics.
quote:Best analysis of the truth of the situation that I've seen so far.
Originally posted by Snags:
Not sure how balanced this is, but it sounds entirely plausible to me.
quote:THIS.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:That's encouraging, but keep in mind that none of Trump's campaign successes have followed precedent.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
FWIW, Nate Silver says that although it is notionally possible that Trump could turn it around, there is no precedent statistically for it.
quote:Not true. Trump routinely ignores established norms of political behavior, but his campaign successes have been quite precedented. The trajectory of the Republican primary campaign was Trump consistently leading in just about every poll throughout the length of that contest. There's plenty of precedent for "the candidate who has the most support wins the election". Indeed, any other outcome would be the surprise.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:That's encouraging, but keep in mind that none of Trump's campaign successes have followed precedent.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
FWIW, Nate Silver says that although it is notionally possible that Trump could turn it around, there is no precedent statistically for it.
quote:Pretty much anyone can say "I am running for the Democratic/Republican nomination for president". The usual hurdle is getting your name on the primary ballot, which typically requires gathering a certain number of signatures and must be done separately in each state. It's theoretically possible to win primaries as a write-in candidate, but in practical terms it's incredibly unlikely. Getting enough signatures requires a lot of money and/or organization and before the Citizens United decision was the main bottleneck through which the party elites could trim back an otherwise overabundant candidate field. Since Citizens United any billionaire with an agenda can get his proxy on the ballot (or run themselves, in the case of alleged billionaire Trump).
Originally posted by Sarasa:
It's rather late in the day to ask this, but how did Trump end up as a possible candidate in the first place? Can anyone decide to stand for as a Republican or Democrat without some sort of endorsement from their party?
As you can gather I have only the haziest ideas on American politics.
quote:He has implied that he won't.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would put good money on there never being a concession speech. Really, can you imagine him saying any such thing?
quote:Only if the pageant itself took place in a foreign country (which Trump has done on occasion). The general rule is that crimes are prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they're committed. There are a few situations where this isn't the case, but that's usually reserved for things like atrocities or war crimes.
Originally posted by HCH:
In the various beauty contests Trump has run, were there any contestants from other countries who may have stories about his misbehavior? Could he presently face charges filed in other countries?
quote:Sure is. But the eagle-eyed Brenda linked it a couple of pages ago
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Best analysis of the truth of the situation that I've seen so far.
Originally posted by Snags:
Not sure how balanced this is, but it sounds entirely plausible to me.
quote:I think this involves a dubious premise and an ignored reality. The dubious premise is that any of the non-Trump Republican primary candidates had any "substance". Do you remember any of the substantive policy proposals of any of the rest of the 2016 Republican field? They were just the same usual mix of tax cuts for the very wealthy and vicious cuts to social programs.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
4)The rest of the Republican contenders couldn't put a single personality together between them, much less an engaging one.
As horrible as it is turning out to be, Trump has a strong personality. And personality wins over substance every single day of the year.
quote:Not in the slightest did I mean to imply any of those others were of much real substance.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this involves a dubious premise and an ignored reality. The dubious premise is that any of the non-Trump Republican primary candidates had any "substance".
quote:That sort of implies that Clinton doesn't have a personality. Trump has a personality, but it is one that many people do not like. People are choosing ideology, but substance? Not so sure. If substance were a real issue, Trump would not have made nominee and the polls since would have had a much greater gap.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The ignored reality is that substance seems to be beating personality in the general election.
quote:He's BSing again. The man couldn't keep quiet to save his life.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:He has implied that he won't.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would put good money on there never being a concession speech. Really, can you imagine him saying any such thing?
quote:It's Obama's fault. Everything is.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We could have a betting pool -- who will he blame the most? I am thinking his unlucky manager, Kellyann Conway.
quote:Truly a "glass half-full" sort of analysis.
Trump tells Billy Bush that he sexually assaults women; New York Times finds two such episodes. Trump passes a fact-check.
quote:I predict a bounced paycheck in her future. This may be the first time it was deserved tho
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We could have a betting pool -- who will he blame the most? I am thinking his unlucky manager, Kellyann Conway.
quote:Yeaaahhhh. Thanks Obama!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It's Obama's fault. Everything is.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We could have a betting pool -- who will he blame the most? I am thinking his unlucky manager, Kellyann Conway.
quote:Maybe not the ungrateful women, but wasn't it Obama who let all those awful brown people and Muslims into our country? After all, he's one of them.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely it won't entirely be Obama's fault? What about all those awful brown people, Muslims, ungrateful women, and the like?
I'll get me coat....
Ian J.
quote:That is frickin' fabulous.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From Twitter:
quote:Truly a "glass half-full" sort of analysis.
Trump tells Billy Bush that he sexually assaults women; New York Times finds two such episodes. Trump passes a fact-check.
quote:I reckon you overestimate her influence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I reckon Michelle Obama has just doomed Trump to a landslide loss.
quote:What more do you need to say when a woman gives a speech about women feeling voiceless and a dude turns around and says "no one gives a shit what she had to say."
Originally posted by romanlion:
No one gives a shit what she says, that's why channels interested in selling commercials don't screen her blather.
quote:Some people have nothing to do but post.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Some people have nothing to post but spite. How sad that is.
quote:Ummm, just what are you trying to say here? That they'll be assassinated? And/or you're hoping for that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
quote:Yes, obviously.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:Ummm, just what are you trying to say here? That they'll be assassinated? And/or you're hoping for that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
quote:No one? I saw a shitload of someones in media coverage.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I reckon you overestimate her influence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I reckon Michelle Obama has just doomed Trump to a landslide loss.
No one gives a shit what she says,
quote:I'm not sure that the money-grabbers are the best evaluaters of all that is good and beneficial to planet earth. YMMV.
Originally posted by romanlion:
that's why channels interested in selling commercials don't screen her blather.
quote:I find the small pink pills quite helpful.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
quote:This. This, this, a thousand times, this.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:What more do you need to say when a woman gives a speech about women feeling voiceless and a dude turns around and says "no one gives a shit what she had to say."
Originally posted by romanlion:
No one gives a shit what she says, that's why channels interested in selling commercials don't screen her blather.
quote:Romanlion, expressing your opinions is what Purgatory is all about, and you are welcome to do so.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
quote:Out of curiosity, do Aussie china plates come with chins?
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think I would be feeling very bad if things were reversed. Chin up, me old china plate.
quote:We'll see. Want a bet on what the post election demographics will show about Trump's share of the women's vote? Hint: Romney got 44% in 2012, Obama 55% Further hint; in advance of Michelle Obama's speech, Hillary had a forecast average lead of 15 points with women voters. i.e. 4% better than Obama. Trump is forecast to be 5 points ahead with the men voters.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I reckon you overestimate her influence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I reckon Michelle Obama has just doomed Trump to a landslide loss.
No one gives a shit what she says, that's why channels interested in selling commercials don't screen her blather.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
{tangent}
quote:Out of curiosity, do Aussie china plates come with chins?
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think I would be feeling very bad if things were reversed. Chin up, me old china plate.
quote:You can get that looked at you know. I'd recommend chemical castration at least as well. Camomile tea. Basket weaving. Arf. ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF! [Ribbit. RibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbit]
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Yes, obviously.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:Ummm, just what are you trying to say here? That they'll be assassinated? And/or you're hoping for that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
Bill and Illary will be assassinated on inauguration day.
Just. Fucking. Wow.
quote:If this election begins to change how this dynamic is seen, that would be a good thing. Might just have reached a tipping point awareness wise in some groups that heretofore had ignored such things as not important.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:What more do you need to say when a woman gives a speech about women feeling voiceless and a dude turns around and says "no one gives a shit what she had to say."
Originally posted by romanlion:
No one gives a shit what she says, that's why channels interested in selling commercials don't screen her blather.
quote:I read out some of these to a friend on the phone. 'How' he asked, 'does he fit his avoidance of germs with sticking his tongue in women's mouths?'
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The 7 Oddest Things Donald Trump Thinks: Why the man who wants to be leader of the most powerful nation on earth prefers fast food, no sleep and old-school flame retardants. (Politico)
And there are stranger things.
quote:"Repeal the 19th" was a trending hashtag yesterday. The 19th amendment being women's suffrage.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I fully expect the racist (I refuse to call them alt) right to go full backlash and add women's rights to the evils list they whine about.
quote:...Or, perhaps none. Some of the Good Old Boys™ around here who talk and grab like the Donald has claimed to do, were, according to their wives, non-functioning. Much to their great relief.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
<snip> he possibly has the boundless libido that some teen boys seem to have<snip>
quote:"TFO"? Is that The Forbidden One? (Or as he has become known around our house, He Who Would Be Groper in Chief?)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is sad about the TFO is that he is over 70.
quote:Ahhh. Thanks.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Tiny Fingered One.
quote:Marvin,
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:You can get that looked at you know. I'd recommend chemical castration at least as well. Camomile tea. Basket weaving. Arf. ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF! [Ribbit. RibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbit]
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Yes, obviously.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:Ummm, just what are you trying to say here? That they'll be assassinated? And/or you're hoping for that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
Bill and Illary will be assassinated on inauguration day.
Just. Fucking. Wow.
quote:That actually explains a lot. The perfectionism thing, of course, has been on display throughout the campaign-- right down to his inability to admit that he has such a simple, ordinary "weakness" as a common cold which causes him to sniff into a microphone.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The 7 Oddest Things Donald Trump Thinks: Why the man who wants to be leader of the most powerful nation on earth prefers fast food, no sleep and old-school flame retardants. (Politico)
And there are stranger things.
quote:That was my thought as well. So much of Donald's schtick feels like posturing-- it's not really like a teen age boy learning to handle that rush of hormones, rather, it's about puffing himself up to look like The Dominant Alpha Male in front of his male peers. Whether he can actually make good on the promise (or rather, threat) in the bedroom is irrelevant (to him anyway).
Originally posted by jedijudy:
quote:...Or, perhaps none. Some of the Good Old Boys™ around here who talk and grab like the Donald has claimed to do, were, according to their wives, non-functioning. Much to their great relief.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
<snip> he possibly has the boundless libido that some teen boys seem to have<snip>
quote:Ma'am.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Marvin,
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:You can get that looked at you know. I'd recommend chemical castration at least as well. Camomile tea. Basket weaving. Arf. ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF! [Ribbit. RibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbitRibbit]
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Yes, obviously.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
quote:Ummm, just what are you trying to say here? That they'll be assassinated? And/or you're hoping for that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Even if she wins, Illary and her rapist husband will be DOA day one.
Bill and Illary will be assassinated on inauguration day.
Just. Fucking. Wow.
Disagree if you like, strongly. Others have done so above But you should know better than to attack the person here.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
quote:My apologies Brenda!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
More free links:
Others have noted the veiled anti-Semitism.
...
quote:This is too funny to let pass.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Yes, stupid typo. Defintiely you I was trying to yell at.
quote:I disagree. I'd classify disagreements about whether women are full, autonomous citizens to be both a real and a serious issue. I'd like to think it was already settled in the affirmative, but recent events indicate there seem to be a fairly powerful faction arguing that the answer is 'no'.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And that fact that we are both talking about that also goes to how sick this campaign has become. There are real, serious issues to be discussed both nationally and globally, yet we've spent most of the last 12 months talking about the size & functionality of one candidates' sexual organ.
quote:I actually noticed that and thought it was funny enough to leave in, so not just you.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is too funny to let pass.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Yes, stupid typo. Defintiely you I was trying to yell at.
Unless it is poor form to comment on a non-host post by a host referencing a Host-post by that very host.
In which case, this post never happened...
quote:I see lots of women with the qualities that would make them excellent presidents. The problem, rather, is that there are so many "glass ceilings" that keep women from progressing to the types of positions where they would gain the experience we would like to see in a president. Which is why gender equality is not just about electing Hillary to the presidency (although that's a great start) but about nurturing respect and creating opportunities for women at all levels of society.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think the problem with seeing Michelle Obama as presidential material is not that she is married to a president, it's that we don't see any other women with the qualities which would fit them for it.
quote:So what?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
She never will. Too much sense of self-preservation.
Over at the Post, The Fix points out that Trump will never concede. .
quote:Actually, the Obamas are staying in DC so that Sasha (their younger daughter) can finish high school there.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Whether she's looking forward to getting out of DC in January, or focusing on advocating for Hillary, or just wants to be more comfortable, I don't know. I wish her well.
quote:This is frickin' awesome!! This guy gets it, owns it, and ends with:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A man writes of his failure as a human being. It is fair to say that he would not have written this piece ten days ago.
quote:Thanks for this, Brenda. And in Esquire, no less!
Women of the world, we have failed you. We have thoroughly, unfailingly, systemically failed you.
The question now, before we even begin to address forgiveness, is: Can we stop?
quote:We definitely need her, and a lot more like her, in the Senate.
Originally posted by orfeo:
At one point there was some enthusiasm behind Elizabeth Warren.
However, I suspect she's perfectly happy in the Senate where she can grill the heads of banks.
quote:With Donald in freefall, there is even the slim hope that we might regain the Senate, and make Sen. Warren the Senate majority leader.
Originally posted by orfeo:
At one point there was some enthusiasm behind Elizabeth Warren.
However, I suspect she's perfectly happy in the Senate where she can grill the heads of banks.
quote:He's clearly decided to brazen it out - I suppose there is no other choice. Given his allegation that he is being smeared, he's just going to smear back with anything he can find. He might need to find quite a few more dubious witnesses as the numbers of allegations increase. But given the collective mindset of his core support, just about anything will work. To judge from some of the interviews with them, many of them think like members of a cult.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
What Trump needs is a witness who can confirm that the assault of the lady on the 'plane didn't happen, right?
So... being Trump, he's found one!
Only... being Trump, he's found the least credible, least reliable, least honest person on the planet, about whom more can be found here.
quote:Assuming you're serious, no. Never. This is my country, my home.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
I pray that all good-thinking American liberals have their passports up-to-date. If Trump wins, they are going to want to get out. Surely?
quote:Popcorn? More violence is the legacy of Trump. People will be attacked, people will die.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As with the collapse of all authoritarian regimes, the flaming ruin of the Trump campaign will bring carnage and chaos. Civil war with the GOP, who's got the popcorn?
quote:Alas, I've used up all my POST freebies for the month. Perhaps you could paraphrase?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Washington POST has an excellent Faith column . . . . And . . . a call for evangelical leaders to get out of bed with him. There are already a good many stories pointing out how this is the end of Christian domination of the culture.
quote:Oh I dunno ... Murdoch, Hefner, anyone?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But for the rest of us, there is hope! Trump is over 70; surely he cannot have more than another decade of fumbling crotches and ogling teens left in him.
quote:Someone was marveling at the level of dickheaditude that would lead to the Great Ladies in Red Uprising, and I had this to say: " Look at it this way, they may have accidentally found a way to bypass lateral homogenization and get women to choose solidarity over rivalry."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A call for complete Trump shunning after the election. I am good with this. I never want to see his face or name again, and ten times ten never to hear his voice.
Female conservative pundits have been wonderfully encouraging this cycle. I really admire
Jennifer Rubin at the POST now. She has the creds and has used them to speak truth to power -- for all the good it has done, since power doesn't want to listen.
And here's a Fox news host refusing to take it anyu more.
quote:The man is unstable. All his comments about Clinton being unstable are projections.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I have begun to wonder if Trump is actually going insane, publicly. He is becoming more and more incoherent, irrational, by the day. His platform persona has become truly bizarre.
quote:I am frightened. Too much of this rhymes.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Then I don't understand the effect you intended to have with that comment.
quote:The navigation banner at the top of the page has a link to the free BBV book. And that page has some interesting info, like the White House ordering it, and bin Laden reportedly having it on his bookshelf.
You may be wondering what the term "black box" means. A "black box" system is non-transparent; its functions are hidden from the public. Elections, of course, should not be black box systems.
Influential reporting by Black Box Voting is referenced worldwide. Here is a link to a free copy of the book, Black Box Voting: HERE. Author Bev Harris became known for groundbreaking work on electronic voting machines, which can remove transparency of the vote count; other important reporting pertains to voter lists, election chain of custody, transparency problems with absentee voting, election industry corporate governance, and financial accountability in elections.
Opaque, non-transparent voting can afflict voter lists, poll lists,vote counting and chain of custody; political finance can also be "black box." The road to better transparency begins with knowledge and public, grassroots dedication. I am glad you are here!
quote:I'm happily married, but I have a friend who might be available. He has citizenship in Australia and Ireland, and is a snappy dresser.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Assuming you're serious, no. Never. This is my country, my home.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
I pray that all good-thinking American liberals have their passports up-to-date. If Trump wins, they are going to want to get out. Surely?
Moreover, I don't have the means to leave. Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand - basically any English-speaking country where I'd consider living if I were going to leave the US - none of these places would let me immigrate. I have no family in these places and no special skills to contribute, and I don't have money to invest.
And given Brexit, perhaps I should take the UK off that list. The UK has arguably screwed itself harder even than the US would were we to elect Trump, as he'd be out in 4 years, and the UK will be out of Europe for the foreseeable future.
quote:Was he ever sane or stable?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:The man is unstable. All his comments about Clinton being unstable are projections.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I have begun to wonder if Trump is actually going insane, publicly. He is becoming more and more incoherent, irrational, by the day. His platform persona has become truly bizarre.
quote:Wouldn't it be wonderful if that meltdown happened at the final debate?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No, he's always been that way. If you are inclined, look up what you can about his very stupid feud with Rosie O'Donnel. Or the origin of the hand thing.
But the way he has been front and center seems to be deepening the problem. I think he's heading for a real meltdown.
quote:The clowns are already here, Rolyn. The US has had a nationwide rash of creepy stalkers and criminals dressed in clown suits. It's so bad that real clowns are losing their usual party business.
Originally posted by rolyn:
So we have one presidential candidate who, a few weeks back, nearly collapsed in the street due to pneumonia and now the other bordering on the edge of a mental breakdown on stage.
Bring on the the clowns.
quote:You can't possibly think an infectious disease that one can recover from, and mental illness, are at all comparable. Please tell me you realize this is a false equivalence.
Originally posted by rolyn:
So we have one presidential candidate who, a few weeks back, nearly collapsed in the street due to pneumonia and now the other bordering on the edge of a mental breakdown on stage.
Bring on the the clowns.
quote:It is not an accusation, but an observation. You can debate the motive, but the actions are apparent.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
(Let's not forget, the TFO has been accused of a 'scorched earth' tactics.)
quote:Hear, hear. The thought of witnessing that is shudder- making. I hope it doesn't come to that. And as you say, there would be a lot of collateral damage.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
As much as the guy is despicable, I'm not sure if I'd want him to have a public meltdown. There's also his followers and backers who wouldn't like that; they may well have something/someone even more despicable in mind to go on with, should this happen. (Let's not forget, the TFO has been accused of a 'scorched earth' tactics.)
I wouldn't wish a public breakdown on anyone. The sense of glee by their opponents as a result isn't nice to watch either. Relief perhaps, but a merciful, kind, because realistic response would make more sense, whatever that could be.
quote:I think the impact of anything from wikileaks is much diminished by the fact that its CEO is an alleged rapist and fugitive from justice and, to all practical intents and purposes, a Russian asset. Frankly, if a drone goes whistling through the basement window of the Ecuadorean Embassy, the day after Hilary's Inaguration, someone else can write the letter of protest to the lead singer of Echo and the Bunnymen.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've had a look at the earlier Wikileaks 'highlights' and admit to being underwhelmed by their significance. I suppose if the US 'non-Fox' media get bored with Trump's shenanigans between now and election day, they might make a big thing out of the more embarrassing bits. And Assange might have more up his sleeve.
Later edit. The dump I've read about today actually does look dangerous for Hillary, but I suppose a lot depends on whether Assange's summary is borne out by the detail.
quote:Exactly, it has almost before pure voyeuism and, as I myself recorded the last one, virtually irresistible.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wednesday's debate is set fair to be....er....interesting. But why have it anyway? Surely there's little more to say....
Ian J.
quote:You have smoked the quote, an ace I couldn't place.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
np--
Do you mean "history rhymes", and Trump's campaign rhymes with that of a certain brown-shirted guy?
(Terry Pratchett said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme".)
quote:Yes yes yes.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kelly--
This is just a guess: I wonder if np is trying to say something like "my family experienced the brown-shirted guy, and those who could get away came here; I don't want that happening again next door; please do something about it"?
I.e., maybe it's more a matter of fear and panic, than thinking Americans are stupid or not paying attention.
FWIW, YMMV, etc.
quote:Well, yes, we are into the first post-truth and post-decency-in-public-life election. Still, it is ironic that the party of Nixon, McCarthy and Family Values are basically rooting for a Jimmy Saville expy with worse hair and George Wallace levels of naivety about Russia cheered on by a latter day Alger Hiss with a side order of sleaze. Never mind the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, the old GOP at its very worst had a better grasp of the US national interest and sexual morality.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Callan
I think that's a perfectly adequate defence in any other election but this one. Much of the leaked material just shows 'how sausages are made'. But this is a mud-slinging travesty of an election campaign.
quote:Let's not forget how long he kept up his birther bullshit attack on President Obama. If past is prologue, eight years from now he'll still be shrieking that Hillary stole this election and she'll be finishing up her second term.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Trump is setting the stage for violence should he win or lose. If he wins, the racists and the haters in his base will feel justified and encouraged. If he loses, his ridiculous accusations of "election rigging" is giving them the excuse to vent the anger he has built.
quote:She's laughing hysterically at this spoof of her. Whereas her opponent wants 'Saturday Night Live' taken off the air after poking fun at him (and Hillary). Granted, SNL's send-up of Trump was harsher, but a little sense of humor goes a long way, and he would have done better to laugh it off.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In any case, when people who essentially agree with each other start quibbing, it's time for a little levity.
quote:I think you mean Henry, not George.
George Wallace levels of naivety about Russia cheered on by a latter day Alger Hiss with a side order of sleaze
quote:Agreed. I loved her reaction ( especially when the image of Bill went by. )
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:She's laughing hysterically at this spoof of her. Whereas her opponent wants 'Saturday Night Live' taken off the air after poking fun at him (and Hillary). Granted, SNL's send-up of Trump was harsher, but a little sense of humor goes a long way, and he would have done better to laugh it off.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In any case, when people who essentially agree with each other start quibbing, it's time for a little levity.
quote:I was just remembering that Sarah's response to Tina Fey's impersonation of her on SNL was to make her own appearance alongside Tina Fey. She may be a dimwit, but she at least had a sense of humor.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Agreed. I loved her reaction ( especially when the image of Bill went by. )
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:She's laughing hysterically at this spoof of her. Whereas her opponent wants 'Saturday Night Live' taken off the air after poking fun at him (and Hillary). Granted, SNL's send-up of Trump was harsher, but a little sense of humor goes a long way, and he would have done better to laugh it off.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In any case, when people who essentially agree with each other start quibbing, it's time for a little levity.
As for Trump, I'm sure Sarah Palin is playing the world's tiniest violin for him right now.
quote:Yes! I also loved her quip that that's the best she's ever danced.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Agreed. I loved her reaction ( especially when the image of Bill went by. )
quote:Gaaaa. WaPo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You know who I think of with fond nostalgia, is Mitt Romney. Binders full of women, how sweet, how gentle! Instead we have this, the shambolic disintegration of the campaign.
quote:I very much doubt it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In which case I hope the media acts out that blackout they keep threatening.
quote:Heh, I forgot about that. That was a classy move.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I was just remembering that Sarah's response to Tina Fey's impersonation of her on SNL was to make her own appearance alongside Tina Fey. She may be a dimwit, but she at least had a sense of humor.
quote:Why gaaaa WaPo? Irony? Sarcasm? Not a fan of that paper? Anything else?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Gaaaa. WaPo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[...]
quote:Quite right, I got my Wallace's mixed up. At least I didn't invoke Ian. Or William.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Callan wrote:
quote:I think you mean Henry, not George.
George Wallace levels of naivety about Russia cheered on by a latter day Alger Hiss with a side order of sleaze
And who is "Alger Hiss" in the Trump campaign?
quote:Of course, he can win. But the odds are not at all in his favor.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And he can win. 15% are undecided. Another unprecedent.
quote:God bless you, sir.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Three cheers for the positive stuff on page 119, especially the stuff from US Shipmates. I'm not sure I would have any degree of perspective on the election if I was over there.
quote:But some Democrat set up a Gofundme and a group of mostly Democrats raised $13k toward repairing the damage. That's the kind of bipartisanship it's encouraging to see.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, and some shithead tried to burn down the GOP campaign headquarters in Atlanta, GA. yesterday.
quote:I haven't seen anything about an incident in Atlanta. Do you maybe mean the Orange County (NC) GOP HQ in Hillsborough? Someone tossed a Molotov cocktail through a window there. (Apparently it went out on its own.)
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, and some shithead tried to burn down the GOP campaign headquarters in Atlanta, GA. yesterday.
quote:Paid subscription firewall.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Why gaaaa WaPo? Irony? Sarcasm? Not a fan of that paper? Anything else?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Gaaaa. WaPo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[...]
quote:Excellent Nick, thanks. 1:6.66.. STILL not low enough!
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Of course, he can win. But the odds are not at all in his favor.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And he can win. 15% are undecided. Another unprecedent.
Even with 15% undecided, he'd have to get a much larger share of them than he has of the decided voters. That may be an even bigger task this year that it would normally be. It appears that one reason for the unprecedented numbers of "undecideds" this year is because they really, really don't like either of the two main choices. These are not people Trump can likely woo easily. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that they'll end up voting for a 3rd party candidate or not voting at all.
And Trump not only has to get the lion's share of undecided voters, he has to get them properly distributed in the right states to win—it does him no good to get all 15% if they're all in states he would win anyway. Based on a recent Quinnipiac poll, the number of undecided voters seems to be closer to 6% in Florida, 4% in North Carolina, 4% in Ohio and 7% in Pennsylvania. Unless he can also get Arizona, he'd pretty much need to get something close to all undecided voters in these 4 states to get over 270 in the Electoral College.
So he can win, but as of now the actual chances of him winning appear to be pretty low, around 15%.
quote:Every so often they run a huge deal: $19 online access for a year. Give the site your email and you'll get their advertising - totally worth it IMO.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Paid subscription firewall.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Why gaaaa WaPo? Irony? Sarcasm? Not a fan of that paper? Anything else?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Gaaaa. WaPo.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[...]
quote:Here's a series of tweets by Ashby Law (a law firm specializing in election law that mostly serves Republican clients) on why it's virtually impossible to rig an American election. Here's a quick summary of what's being suggested from tweets 22-25:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I have to say that when reading the latest Trump focus on "election rigging" my immediate reaction was to channel Victor Meldrew.
He really is crazy.
quote:That's a huge conspiracy that's being postulated. Much larger than could plausibly be kept secret.
To rig an election, you would need (1) technological capabilities that might exist only in Mission Impossible movies plus (2) the cooperation of the Rs and Ds who are serving as a precinct’s elex offs, plus (3) the blind eyes of R and D poll watchers plus (4) the cooperation of another set of Rs & Ds – the officials at the post-elex canvass, plus (5) the blind eyes of their watchers. Then you’d still have to trick lawyers, operatives & elex admins, who are scrubbing precinct-level returns for aberrant elex results.
quote:It looks like you can get around it by clicking whatever you have to click in your browser to stop the page from loading -- in between the time that the article loads and the pop-up appears blocking your ability to read it.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Paid subscription firewall.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am still waiting for Obama to initiate that Muslim caliphate; he's let it drag 7 1/2 years now and has left himself almost no time to spread his Sauron-like dark wings over the globe properly. He had better get it in gear.
quote:I think the "shy Trump" supporter thing is probably real, but I think a bigger (and more positive) factor is the "rational Republican" factor. I know a good many "rational Republicans"-- none in office, mind you, but out there in the Real World. And they are well and truly s*****d in this election. Most will not support Clinton for ideological reasons, but can't vote for Trump because, well, they have to live in this country past inauguration day.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This strikes me as a very good report on the state of play. I hadn't realised that the undecided percentage was still relatively high compared with 2012. The 'shy Trump supporters' argument strikes me as a real risk given the undoubted polarisation, the candidate antics, and the 'outsider' mindset. It doesn't take more than about 3 out of a hundred of those polled to hide behind 'undecided' just for the 'fun' of thumbing their noses at the pollsters.
quote:Indeed. As was McCain's later appearance when it seemed clear his campaign was dead in the water. Then, years earlier, there was the first President Bush, who asked Dana Carvey to hilariously impersonate him in his final press conference.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Heh, I forgot about that. That was a classy move.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I was just remembering that Sarah's response to Tina Fey's impersonation of her on SNL was to make her own appearance alongside Tina Fey. She may be a dimwit, but she at least had a sense of humor.
quote:Not really sure why this is directed at me, but totally agree that any woman who would vote for Trump is seriously messed up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
cliffdweller
A quick update on the womens vote forecast. The 538 website is now saying that HC has a 20 percentage point lead over DT with women voters. That's probably the most significant demographic in play. 'Trump makes my flesh crawl and there is no way I'm voting for that creep'.
It looks as though Michelle Obama caught the mood, gave it voice, and pointed out the voting imperative. That may be seen as the decisive moment, even more than the release of the recording.
quote:Blogger Fred Clark (who identifies as Evangelical) made a similar point about a week ago.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And, a free click, a Christian points out how the Mormons have really led the way this year. They'll be able to look themselves in the mirror again, in a way that Jerry Falwell Jr. will not.
quote:I thought it might be of specific interest to you because of this from your previous post.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Not really sure why this is directed at me, but totally agree that any woman who would vote for Trump is seriously messed up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
cliffdweller
A quick update on the womens vote forecast. The 538 website is now saying that HC has a 20 percentage point lead over DT with women voters. That's probably the most significant demographic in play. 'Trump makes my flesh crawl and there is no way I'm voting for that creep'.
It looks as though Michelle Obama caught the mood, gave it voice, and pointed out the voting imperative. That may be seen as the decisive moment, even more than the release of the recording.
quote:It is looking more and more likely that women will ensure that, which I regard as an excellent message for the majority of the electorate to send out to the others.
And Trump needs to lose big to demonstrate that we are not the country he seems to think we are.
quote:That one's pretty obvious. If you're a Christian who follows the Bible, your religious conscience will be legally protected. If you're a follower of some other faith, not so much.
Originally posted by Twilight:
A lot of things like "protect Biblical religious conscience," are meaningless, most are misleading and other's are just plain false.
quote:Not true. No Republican has ever lost Ohio and won the election. Several Democrats have done it, most recently John Kennedy.
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's a worry. Trump is already one point ahead here and no one has ever lost Ohio and won the election.
quote:Beastly isn't it?! 1:6.66.. Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone comes to mind!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That number makes me uneasy.
quote:For you Cornhusker state watchers, 538 just flipped the 2nd to the lightest of blue today.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Nebraska is kind of interesting to watch. The 2nd district (Omaha and surroundings) is barely in the Red column per 538, and may drop into the blue shortly.
The 3rd (everything west of Lincoln, plus a few rural counties in the northeast and southeast) is about as close to a sure thing for Republicans as there is.
quote:What a great quote on the latter link:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...
From the Atlantic, he has certainly lost the black vote.
quote:You might want to take a look at my post about Black Box Voting. The site has been working on clean elections for about 13 years.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a huge conspiracy that's being postulated. Much larger than could plausibly be kept secret.
quote:I presume that's from the movie version? I watched the TV series. There, Stillson was pretty darn slick, and wouldn't publicly do the kind of chaotic mess-making that Trump is doing.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Beastly isn't it?! 1:6.66.. Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone comes to mind!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That number makes me uneasy.
quote:Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking more of Hiss the supposedly traitorous adviser to FDR, rather than Hiss the betrayer of secrets, so the Assange comparison didn't hit me that hard.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Quite right, I got my Wallace's mixed up. At least I didn't invoke Ian. Or William.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Callan wrote:
quote:I think you mean Henry, not George.
George Wallace levels of naivety about Russia cheered on by a latter day Alger Hiss with a side order of sleaze
And who is "Alger Hiss" in the Trump campaign?
Alger Hiss is Assange. There's not much difference, morally, between passing confidential information to the Russians and leaking it to influence the election of the Russian government's preferred candidate in an election. If someone was pulling that sort of thing to get a Democrat elected at Brezhnev's behest, back in the day, the Republicans, quite properly, would have been incensed. We live in very strange times.
quote:I was referring to in-person voter fraud at the polls, the type of "rigging" Trump suggests his followers can prevent by going to "certain neighborhoods" and leering at voters. This is also the same kind of election rigging Republicans have been hatching conspiracy theories about for years as an excuse to disenfranchise certain voters. Election rigging by insiders with control of the process is far more plausible.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--
I wasn't saying that Trump is right. I was responding to Croesos' comment that rigging was implausible.
Rigging happens frequently in lower levels of gov't. Chicago has a "vote early, vote often" reputation. The state of Louisiana similarly. Here in San Francisco, there've been all sorts of things, including ballot boxes winding up in the bay.
quote:A citation, other than anecdata, reputation or reference to elections more than 50 years ago (JFK v. Nixon) showing that "rigging happens frequently" please? And what exactly constitutes "frequently"?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Rigging happens frequently in lower levels of gov't. Chicago has a "vote early, vote often" reputation. The state of Louisiana similarly. Here in San Francisco, there've been all sorts of things, including ballot boxes winding up in the bay.
quote:I think GK is thinking of Asterix in Corsica*
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
A citation
quote:Disenfranchising voters seems to be standard political practice. SOP for current Republicans specifically targets groups that will not likely support them.
Originally posted by Gwai:
[crossposted with Croesos who is having similar thoughts]
Re elections and rigging, what worries me is the number of people who are trying to disenfranchise those who are likely to disagree with them. (See Florida and African-American voters, for instance)
quote:Hopefully the Slate is considered a balanced enough source for
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A citation, other than anecdata, reputation or reference to elections more than 50 years ago (JFK v. Nixon) showing that "rigging happens frequently" please? And what exactly constitutes "frequently"?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Rigging happens frequently in lower levels of gov't. Chicago has a "vote early, vote often" reputation. The state of Louisiana similarly. Here in San Francisco, there've been all sorts of things, including ballot boxes winding up in the bay.
quote:I'll accept Slate. But a quick read—and I'm happy to be corrected if because of reading quickly I missed something—I didn't see support for a general statement that "rigging happens frequently," unless "in Chicago" is added to the end of the sentence. At most, the story seems to show that improper activity, some of which may qualify as actual (or attempted) vote rigging* and some of which may not, has occurred in Chicago. Even if San Francisco is added, that leaves lots of the rest of the country.
Originally posted by Prester John:
Hopefully the Slate is considered a balanced enough source for
you. That was for Chicago. I couldn't find anything that would summarize San Francisco's problems but a quick Google search for San Francisco election fraud turns up plenty of hits. Most of these admittedly were for local elections as opposed to presidential or gubernatorial elections.
quote:Let us hope that such confidence regarding Hilary being home and dry doesn't cause a significant number of voters to think it is safe to tick trump's box as a protest vote.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The money quote: "It would be a mistake to call Trump’s current path to an electoral college victory narrow. It is nonexistent."
quote:That would be a truly historic event. The 538 Senate Forecast gives the Democrats a 76% chance of winning control over the Senate, but a <0.1% chance of picking up the 14 seats necessary to become a filibuster proof majority. So don't get your hopes up.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Now even the GOP Senate Leadership is resorting to desperation tactics. Senator McCain is now stating the Senate Republicans will block any Supreme Court nomination by Clinton. I think this will backfire on them because, if there is one thing people do not appreciate is a deadlocked government. Look for the Senate to go to the Dems by 60 to 40, at least.
quote:To take a brief detour into the Senate election, there are 10 Democratic and 24 Republican U.S. Senate seats up for election this year. 2010 was a wave year for Republicans, so six years later they have much more to defend in the Senate than the Democrats. Of the seats under contention, only six or seven are close enough to be considered uncertain. Another two are reasonably certain but involve a party switch (both Republican to Democrat). So as it currently stands the most likely outcome is a Democratic gain of 2 to 9 seats in the U.S. Senate. A gain of 5 seats will give the Democrats outright control of the Senate, while a gain of 4 allows them control only if Tim Kaine wins the vice presidency.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:That would be a truly historic event. The 538 Senate Forecast gives the Democrats a 76% chance of winning control over the Senate, but a <0.1% chance of picking up the 14 seats necessary to become a filibuster proof majority. So don't get your hopes up.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Now even the GOP Senate Leadership is resorting to desperation tactics. Senator McCain is now stating the Senate Republicans will block any Supreme Court nomination by Clinton. I think this will backfire on them because, if there is one thing people do not appreciate is a deadlocked government. Look for the Senate to go to the Dems by 60 to 40, at least.
quote:He should have retired after his 2008 loss of the White House.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
After his latest outburst I have lost all respect for McCain. He should retire.
quote:I wonder why he waited so long? I trust Michael Moore almost completely although I think he can sometimes be cruel and always a bit biased. His "Sicko," permanently took the shine of Hillary for me, although never enough to make me vote for Trump.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now, Micheal Moore has now announced he is releasing a movie on Trump tonight in NYC. Called Trumpland.
quote:Beware of cherry picking polls. Neither RCP or 538 show this one as a close race. (I'd link, but UBB is giving me fits at the moment.)
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Og, new polling indicates McCain is losing to his opponent and McCain was thought to be a solid seat.
quote:I watched that yesterday and just about fell out of my chair laughing. I have become a huge (or should that be "yuge"?) John Oliver fan.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For those thinking a third party candidate is a possible voting solution, go to YouTube and do a search for John Oliver third parties. Is link it, but it is 18min. and that isn't fair to the hosts. That and you can sort out region access.
The tl;do is that neither Gary Johnson or Jill Stein appear at all prepared for the job.
quote:Thanks for that. I like Hillary more than I thought.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Tired of claims of sexual prowess, pneumonia, cocaine, election rigging, impeachment, and private e-mail servers?
Here's a piece that actually looks at where the candidates stand on political issues!!!11!!1!11!111!!
quote:Yes indeed, but can the USA afford to have gangs of dogs roaming the streets, looking for elections to rig? I say no, and the nation's experience with the resurgence of wolves proves my point.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ed's policy is NOT about letting loose the dogs of war, it is a plea for canine liberation.
quote:Don't people sue about these things?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
There's also "official" fraud. In Arizona we have had polling places closed (in the recent Presidential primary people waited in line for up to five hours, unless they gave up and went home); "mistakes," especially in the Spanish-language election materials and ballots which gave the wrong election date or mis-information about ballot propositions; a polling place closed after the ballots (with voting information on them) were mailed, etc. etc. The State and County election officials responsible are all Republicans -- most of the voters affected by these so-called mistakes are in Democrat-majority areas or are Spanish speaking.
quote:Yup.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Don't people sue about these things?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
There's also "official" fraud. In Arizona we have had polling places closed (in the recent Presidential primary people waited in line for up to five hours, unless they gave up and went home); "mistakes," especially in the Spanish-language election materials and ballots which gave the wrong election date or mis-information about ballot propositions; a polling place closed after the ballots (with voting information on them) were mailed, etc. etc. The State and County election officials responsible are all Republicans -- most of the voters affected by these so-called mistakes are in Democrat-majority areas or are Spanish speaking.
quote:Sure...
Originally posted by simontoad:
Yes indeed, but can the USA afford to have gangs of dogs roaming the streets,...
quote:No.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I think GK is thinking of Asterix in Corsica*
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
A citation
*("the ballot boxes are full BEFORE the elections?" "Yes, then we throw them in the sea without opening them, and the strongest man wins. It's a tradition of ours").
quote:Thanks for the info. Sounds worth seeing.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I wonder why he waited so long? I trust Michael Moore almost completely although I think he can sometimes be cruel and always a bit biased. His "Sicko," permanently took the shine of Hillary for me, although never enough to make me vote for Trump.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now, Micheal Moore has now announced he is releasing a movie on Trump tonight in NYC. Called Trumpland.
quote:From your link, emphasis mine:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Scavenged ballot box lids haunt S.F. elections" (SFGate).
quote:Your story is about ballot box lids. If you can show me in that article where fraud is proven (or ballot boxes ended up in the sea), then go ahead.
As the lids keep being discovered farther and farther from San Francisco's shores, the lore around them has built
quote:Did you miss the slideshow pictures at the beginning? First two are pics of the ballot box lids that were found. Third one is a map of the places they were found, around the Bay.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:From your link, emphasis mine:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Scavenged ballot box lids haunt S.F. elections" (SFGate).quote:Your story is about ballot box lids. If you can show me in that article where fraud is proven (or ballot boxes ended up in the sea), then go ahead.
As the lids keep being discovered farther and farther from San Francisco's shores, the lore around them has built
quote:(Emphasis mine)
"As the lids keep being discovered farther and farther from San Francisco's shores, the lore around them has built, and they've become local collectors' items"?
quote:That's against the Constitootion!
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Sure...
Originally posted by simontoad:
Yes indeed, but can the USA afford to have gangs of dogs roaming the streets,...
Just bring them to heel.
Sorry for the multiple copies of my last post. My connection with the Ship has been very strange, over the last hour or two.
quote:Trump's brother, Fred, is dead but his widow could sit in the audience. She could tell people about how Donald got his father with dementia to cut Fred's family out of his will. She could bring her grandson who has cerebral palsy and mention how Donald promised to pay his medical bills but then reneged on the promise. Yes, let's have the candidates sit down and let the disgruntled relatives of various Democrats and Republicans take the stage.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oy gevalt. (Yiddish expression of dismay.)
"Donald Trump is bringing Obama's estranged half-brother to the final presidential debate" (SF Gate).
Malik is from Kenya, but now lives in the US and is a US citizen--and voting for Trump.
What a thing to do.
quote:To be frank, this in its brilliance is waaaaay too close for comfort! The incoherent ramblings appear utterly realistic and not at all as a sarcastic take, at least if the transcripts of his speeches are anything to go by. (With the exception perhaps of Pence thinking he wants to die. But perhaps he would think that.)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
On a lighter note:
Tom Tomorrow's "This Modern World" comic strip is having great, sarcastic, outrageous fun with the election.
quote:No. People involved in political life can be, and without question sometimes are, corrupt in the US. But politics in and of itself isn't corrupt just because some involved in politics are corrupt, any more than religion is corrupt just because some involved in religion are corrupt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Believe it or not, politics is corrupt in the US.
quote:No, that's not what he said. Carter was speaking of the system in Florida specifically, not the United States as a whole. And he didn't say that failure to meet certain basic standards was why the Carter Center didn't monitor US elections. This is what he said:
FYI: Former president Jimmy Carter has participated in international election monitoring. The voting system where his group goes must meet some basic standards to even qualify for monitoring. He said that the US system didn't even qualify. (This was some years back, probably around the 2000 election--the one that was such a horrific mess, and I don't mean the candidates.)
quote:(Carter's original op-ed piece was published in The Washington Post on September 27, 2004. It can be found here.)
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"
The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
quote:Sorry. I meant 2000, but didn't catch the error fast enough.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The deficiencies he described were his partial explanation for the problems in Florida in 2004.
quote:What is politics if it isn't the people involved in politics?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No. People involved in political life can be, and without question sometimes are, corrupt in the US. But politics in and of itself isn't corrupt just because some involved in politics are corrupt, any more than religion is corrupt just because some involved in religion are corrupt
quote:I'm not convinced that the rotten egg analogy works here. As you said, that analogy would mean that the whole thing has to to go. I'd suggest that maybe a tumor is the better analogy—the tumor is bad and dangerous, and it needs to be removed before it has more opportunity to compromise otherwise healthy parts of the body. And then it needs to be biopsied, and measures need to be taken to prevent it from coming back. But the tumor doesn't make all parts of the body sick themselves.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
What is politics if it isn't the people involved in politics?
A rotten egg is a rotten egg, even if it's "good in parts", as the Curate discovered. Likewise, if "part of politics" is corrupt, then politics is corrupt; if "part of religion" is corrupt, then religion is corrupt. That either politics or religion is corrupt doesn't mean it is irredeemably so (unlike eggs), but it is corrupt nonetheless, surely?
quote:fyi: Moore is far from the first or only person to float this theory-- in fact, we discussed it at length on this thread pages & pages ago. Recent moves on Trump Jr's part to explore setting up a Trump cable network aid fuel to the fire. I think it's a valid explanation-- we seem to see quite a lot of that in the GOP these days-- different celebrity faces launching a presidential run as a platform for easier/more lucrative gigs on Faux News. That sounds right up Trump's alley. The problem being that once he got in, his outsize ego prevented him from bowing out early a la Gingrich, so now he's determined to steer this Titanic straight into the iceberg.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Anyway, I went to Michael's site to poke around, and I found this:
"Is Trump Deliberately Sabotaging His Campaign, Because He Never Really Wanted The Job In The First Place?"
Interesting info, if true. Both Trump and former campaign manager (?) said, sometime back, that T didn't really want to do the actual work, and would delegate it. But this article goes farther than that, evidently with info that Michael was given on deep background. I'm not sure I credit T with the active, functional intelligence that he would need to do what M said. Other than that caveat, though, it might be possible....
quote:I think there IS real election rigging in the US-- but it's not happening at the point of the polling place. It's happening before then. It's happening in massive gerrymandering that insures (mostly Republican) Congressional incumbents a guaranteed seat. It's happening (as noted above) in efforts to disenfranchise minority voters by closing polling places or limiting hours in certain neighborhoods. It's happening in a variety of subtle barriers that make it harder for lower-income people relying on public transportation to get to the polls, who work minimum wage jobs where they don't get time off to vote. All of these efforts are fueled by mostly mythical murmurings about "election fraud" happening at the polling place. (How preventing people from getting to the polling place prevents ballot boxes from ending up in the SF bay is a mystery to me).
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:No. People involved in political life can be, and without question sometimes are, corrupt in the US. But politics in and of itself isn't corrupt just because some involved in politics are corrupt, any more than religion is corrupt just because some involved in religion are corrupt.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Believe it or not, politics is corrupt in the US.
That's where I'm taking issue—the idea of pointing to some select (and perhaps infamous) examples such as Chicago and San Francisco (or Louisiana or Florida), mixing some documented fraud or other problems with undocumented "things we've been hearing about for years and all know goes on," and then universalizing those examples to the entire country to claim that it happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't.
quote:Fair enough point, but then we get back to what is meant by "rigging." Do we just mean things that might properly be described as fraud, or do we also mean things that everyone knows are happening and that have, at least so far, been upheld as legal by the courts.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think there IS real election rigging in the US-- but it's not happening at the point of the polling place. It's happening before then. It's happening in massive gerrymandering that insures (mostly Republican) Congressional incumbents a guaranteed seat.
quote:It works as an analogy as much as any analogy can ever work; it is a flawed analogy inasmuch as all analogies are innately flawed and, therefore, they work but they don't ever wholly work. Hence why I included "(unlike eggs)".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm not convinced that the rotten egg analogy works here. As you said, that analogy would mean that the whole thing has to to go.
quote:Chris Wallace is one of the better journalists at Fox News. I've actually seen him ask tough questions of Republicans. (You may be aware he's the son of Mike Wallace.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Different tack entirely. I've just watched today's Prime Minister's Question Time (UK) and it was a good demonstration of how politicians with very different views can nevertheless make their points cogently and receive considered answers.
I'm hoping that Chris Wallace will do a good job tonight and prevent the last Presidential Debate descending to the depths again.
quote:Eh. To me, the "unlike eggs" limitation is a big enough limitation to make the analogy as a whole inapt.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
It works as an analogy as much as any analogy can ever work; it is a flawed analogy inasmuch as all analogies are innately flawed and, therefore, they work but they don't ever wholly work. Hence why I included "(unlike eggs)".
quote:Therein lies the problem with analogy. Analogy means "A is like B" not "A is B". In any analogy, there will be points at which the similarities between A and B are substantial enough for the analogy to work and there will be points at which the differences between A and B are substantial enough for the analogy not to work.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Eh. To me, the "unlike eggs" limitation is a big enough limitation to make the analogy as a whole inapt.
quote:Would you like a kindly Host to delete all the messed up posts? I'm recovering from painful dentistry but should be able to hit the delete buttons?
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
OMG! I swear I didn't do that! It like totally wasn't me :S
quote:Can I vote for
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
1. Questioning by a panel of experts--historians, climate scientists, etc.--in the areas of their expertise
2. A test of actual knowledge, maybe run by "Jeopardy!" host Alex Trebek
quote:Yes please! Such would cause me to love said host as much as I have ever loved my fellow man, particularly if he were to aid me in his own hour of particular need.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would you like a kindly Host to delete all the messed up posts? I'm recovering from painful dentistry but should be able to hit the delete buttons?
quote:Hope that is OK now? If you wanted to adjust the last one I left in, suggest you just post a correction.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:Yes please! Such would cause me to love said host as much as I have ever loved my fellow man, particularly if he were to aid me in his own hour of particular need.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would you like a kindly Host to delete all the messed up posts? I'm recovering from painful dentistry but should be able to hit the delete buttons?
quote:In other words, just like every other venture Trump's ever engaged in.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Recent moves on Trump Jr's part to explore setting up a Trump cable network aid fuel to the fire. I think it's a valid explanation-- we seem to see quite a lot of that in the GOP these days-- different celebrity faces launching a presidential run as a platform for easier/more lucrative gigs on Faux News. That sounds right up Trump's alley. The problem being that once he got in, his outsize ego prevented him from bowing out early a la Gingrich, so now he's determined to steer this Titanic straight into the iceberg.
quote:Yes, I get all of that. My point is that in my view, the point at which the differences between A and B are substantial enough to make the analogy not work comes quickly enough to make the analogy itself one that isn't useful.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Therein lies the problem with analogy. Analogy means "A is like B" not "A is B". In any analogy, there will be points at which the similarities between A and B are substantial enough for the analogy to work and there will be points at which the differences between A and B are substantial enough for the analogy not to work.
I included "unlike eggs" to provide an outer limit to the analogy, not to limit it within itself. The limit was not a statement about the corruption of either politics or eggs, but an acknowledgement that the corruption in eggs is irredeemable; the corruption in politics is not.
quote:I think the analogy works perfectly well within the limits of analogy; you don't. And there we can only agree to differ; one man's meat is another man's poison(ed eggs) and all that.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point is that in my view, the point at which the differences between A and B are substantial enough to make the analogy not work comes quickly enough to make the analogy itself one that isn't useful.
quote:Great minds think alike, although I had the decency to just say it in about a fifth of the world count. Not that we would expect anything else from public radio's favorite psudo-comic.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:For you Cornhusker state watchers, 538 just flipped the 2nd to the lightest of blue today.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Nebraska is kind of interesting to watch. The 2nd district (Omaha and surroundings) is barely in the Red column per 538, and may drop into the blue shortly.
The 3rd (everything west of Lincoln, plus a few rural counties in the northeast and southeast) is about as close to a sure thing for Republicans as there is.
The 3rd, on the other hand, finally got some polling data out, and Trump holds a 40% lead.
Maybe he can move to Kearney after this is all done. It seems to be one of the few places where he remains extremely popular.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I think the analogy works perfectly well within the limits of analogy; you don't. And there we can only agree to differ; one man's meat is another man's poison(ed eggs) and all that
quote:This is one of the great election conundrums for me. My mother in law is from Nebraska, so we have many relatives and friends there, all of whom appear to be intelligent, educated, decent people, and mostly farmers; mostly Lutheran and a handful of Catholics. There are plenty of Republicans among them, but not of the ignorant, repugnant Trump kind at all. I cannot for the life of me understand why Fat Donald has the support that is claimed for him there - they are not like him.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Great minds think alike, although I had the decency to just say it in about a fifth of the world count. Not that we would expect anything else from public radio's favorite psudo-comic.
Garrison Keillor: When it’s over, maybe Trump should move to Nebraska
In the famous words of Homer Simpson, "Be more funny!"
quote:Ok. I finally figured out the layout: the live transcript is below the YouTube screen inset, and the fact checking is inserted and highlighted there.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
NOTE: NPR will be providing live fact-checking during the debate.
for the US democracy
quote:I've been doing ok with waiting for the onslaught of recaps the next day.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So does anyone have any opinions on the debate? Personally I didn't watch it because Trump nauseates me. But I'm interested in others reactions.
I think they were both tired, but H held herself together much better than T did himself. They pretty much said all the same stuff they've been saying.quote:LOL. For whatever reason, he played right into her hands.
H: (...) You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case. He said that the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus; he lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering. He claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged.
T: Should have gotten it.
And I think. the remake of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" is going to be on Fox broadcast TV tomorrow night--with Tim Curry! (I think he's the narrator, this time around.)
quote:You don't accuse someone like Trump of future wrongdoing("He'll probably try to get out of paying it") without fully expecting him to fly off the handle and make offensive remarks.
What I'm sure will matter is the great respecter of women calling HC a nasty woman
quote:The surprising thing is that the opinion polls are as close as they are. You'd think that by now, HC would have reached an all but untouchable margin.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also think there is some relief in there. A month ago, the election result was on a knife edge. Now, not so much.
quote:She is so hated, but I find her more impressive the more I listen to her. I know why she's hated, at least I know the reasons people give for hating her, but I don't find those reasons persuasive. There is probably an underlying issue that I just can't see because I'm not American.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:The surprising thing is that the opinion polls are as close as they are. You'd think that by now, HC would have reached an all but untouchable margin.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also think there is some relief in there. A month ago, the election result was on a knife edge. Now, not so much.
quote:Hillary Clinton is currently on course to do a little better in the electoral college than Obama did against Romney in 2012. But the next couple of weeks could be interesting.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:The surprising thing is that the opinion polls are as close as they are. You'd think that by now, HC would have reached an all but untouchable margin.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also think there is some relief in there. A month ago, the election result was on a knife edge. Now, not so much.
quote:Disaffected white males are still a large voting bloc.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:The surprising thing is that the opinion polls are as close as they are. You'd think that by now, HC would have reached an all but untouchable margin.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also think there is some relief in there. A month ago, the election result was on a knife edge. Now, not so much.
quote:McCain is overdue for the glue factory. Maybe the cowgirl running against him can send him there if she wins.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We've got McCain suggesting Republicans preventing a Supreme Court nominee for an entire presidential term.
quote:But in a certain sense Donald Trump is the apotheosis of what the Republican party has made itself into. He openly embraces the conspiracy theories aired frequently on right wing talk radio or comment sections. And "undermin[ing] the system of elections in his country if [the Republican] loses" is also a long-term Republican project going back three decades.
Originally posted by simontoad:
But it is ego and sense of entitlement of which I have had my fill. I am staggered that he is prepared to undermine the system of elections in his country if he loses. Even though this has been happening now for months, and perfectly foreseeable since the Republican Primaries, I still find his position brazen and reckless in the extreme.
quote:Bothsiderism is a very hard drug to kick. Some folks (notably in the press, but elsewhere too) seem at a complete loss when America's two major political parties are not exactly symmetrical.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is Hillary really hard to vote for? Over here in pale Albion, she looks eminently votable, on the principle of the lesser evil, and against someone who seems unclear if he will accept the result. WTF.
quote:For too many people over here, yes, she is. Crœsos has set forth the reasons:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is Hillary really hard to vote for? Over here in pale Albion, she looks eminently votable, on the principle of the lesser evil, and against someone who seems unclear if he will accept the result. WTF.
quote:Conspiracy theories and allegations of Everything Bad have been circulating about the Clintons, both of them, since 1992. Hillary got pulled firmly into the storm when Bill had her work on healthcare policy, and accusations of socialism and taking our rights away ensued.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To Republicans, this all started in the 1980s with the golden era of Reagan the Great. They talked about 'political realignment' and 'a permanent Republican majority' and were certain that they were on the edge of a thousand year reign. (An exaggeration, but only slightly.) It was a total shock when it was all went away after a mere twelve years when Clinton the Interloper took the White House. Republicans never regarded Bill Clinton as a legitimate president and spent a good deal of effort pursuing phony scandal after phony scandal to undercut a twice-elected president, culminating in a farcical use of Congress' impeachment power.
quote:My thought on this probably isn't terribly original. There are rumors that his son-in-law was meeting with TV folks, and although nothing was settled, it is pretty likely that "Trump TV" is on its way.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I am staggered that he is prepared to undermine the system of elections in his country if he loses.
quote:Because if there is anything we have learned about Trump and his supporters, it is that if you present them with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they accept it and change their views...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which is why a blowout is essential. Clinton must win in an overwhelming landslide, to scotch any of this conspiracy stuff.
quote:Trump has also explicitly stated that the election is being rigged "at many polling places", so he's not confining himself to simply claiming the media is out to get him. He's claiming the electoral process itself is being unfairly interfered with to favor Hillary Clinton
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
My thought on this probably isn't terribly original. There are rumors that his son-in-law was meeting with TV folks, and although nothing was settled, it is pretty likely that "Trump TV" is on its way.
And what better way to launch a network than to say "the system is rigged by the media and the party establishment, and I'm going to expose it on my new network"?
I think this is what he means by "rigged." Sure, he will jump on any story of apparent irregularity or undercover video as proof of something huge and sinister.
quote:Donald Trump has not received the endorsement of any major U.S. newspaper. When he's sat down to be interviewed by various editorial boards (a usual step when a newspaper is considering an endorsement) he's been consistently unprepared, ignorant, and rude. In that sense the media is 'against' him, but that's more a matter of his tremendous sense of entitlement that convinces him he's owed a certain amount of deference from the press.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But his broader claim doesn't depend on any proof of a vote-stealing plot. He just needs his potential subscribers to believe that more people would have voted for Trump if the media were not "against" him.
quote:Unfortunately as blogger Paul Campos points out, a huge blowout will also be considered "proof" of rigging, since such a wide margin could only have been produced by fraud. A wide margin is a good thing to convince less conspiracy-minded Republicans that the white nationalist strategy is a failed one, but it won't stop any conspiracy theorizing. It will simply result in different conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which is why a blowout is essential. Clinton must win in an overwhelming landslide, to scotch any of this conspiracy stuff.
quote:Actually, the first presidential debate in 2012, when Mitt Romney had a good night and Barack Obama had a bad night, moved the polling needle significantly in Romney's favor. Subsequent events (e.g. Romney's "47% video") later moved the polling back even more forcefully the other way, but the first debate in 2012 did have "a notable political impact".
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The debates this cycle have actually had a notable political impact. You could not say this about last time, nor the time before. This says to me that we are doomed to have debates in future.
quote:From a 2006 interview on NPR's "All Things Considered":
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:No, that's not what he said. Carter was speaking of the system in Florida specifically, not the United States as a whole. And he didn't say that failure to meet certain basic standards was why the Carter Center didn't monitor US elections. This is what he said:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
FYI: Former president Jimmy Carter has participated in international election monitoring. The voting system where his group goes must meet some basic standards to even qualify for monitoring. He said that the US system didn't even qualify. (This was some years back, probably around the 2000 election--the one that was such a horrific mess, and I don't mean the candidates.)
{snipped long quote}
So, Carter said Florida elections weren't monitored by the Carter Center because it "can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is [its] top priority." The deficiencies he described were his partial explanation for the problems in Florida in 2004. And as he suggested, those deficiencies do not exist in every state in the US.
quote:(emphasis mine)
ELLIOTT: Mr. President, one final question, if you will. Here in the U.S. we have a very hotly contested election on Tuesday that could change the balance of power in the Congress, and voters across the country are concerned here about the voting process. Is there a need for a poll-watching system of outside observers at U.S. elections?
President CARTER: But there's no doubt in my mind that the United States electoral system is severely troubled and has many faults in it. It would not qualify at all, for instance, for participation by the Carter Center in observing. We require, for instance, that there be uniform voting procedures throughout an entire nation. In the United States you've got not only fragmented from one state to another, but also from one county to another. And there's no doubt that there's severe discrimination against poor people because of the quality of voting procedures presented to them.
Another thing in the United States that we wouldn't permit is that we require that every candidate in a country in which we monitor the elections have equal access to the major news media. In the United States, as you know, it's how much advertising you can buy on television and radio, and unless a candidate can raise sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, they can't even hope to mount a campaign. So the United States has a very inadequate election procedure.
quote:Yup. American Shipmates are very much aware, Bishops Finger. However, being in a democracy, there's only so much we can do. As with Brexit.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Like this is something we didn't know.
quote:
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
--Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler".
quote:His father raised the kids that way: they weren't worthy or attention or love, unless they were winners. I suspect little Donald learned that very, very well, and it's his whole focus. That, plus whatever other mental/physical health issues he has, produced the mess we see. Winning is the only thought he can manage.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I don’t think it’s that calculated. In the nightmare world that is Planet Trump, the single most offensive insult one can possibly employ is ‘Loser’.
The orange monster is becoming progressively more unhinged because he simply cannot countenance the idea that he is going to lose, and lose hard. To a woman, no less.
[x-post: replying to Og]
quote:And he had other obvious influences. Right down to the amazing, but somehow undocumented, references.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I suspect little Donald learned that very, very well, and it's his whole focus.
quote:I'm pretty sure Michelle never claimed to be speaking for the Democratic party. Also it's not his tone and language that were the issue, it's his behavior. Finally the women of America, at least those who have not already crawled in bed with Trump (figuratively speaking), have a right to be shocked and appalled by a major party presidential candidate admitting to sexual crimes, and other men laughing it off as locker room talk.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm glad the Democrats are going to win, and recognize that no one but Trump is responsible for his tone and language. But let's be honest here. Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour.
quote:I think he is saying we Dems are not shocked in the sense of being " surprised", and that underneath a lot of the genuine anger expressed at his behavior there is an equal impulse to delight in the way he is showing his colors.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:You don't accuse someone like Trump of future wrongdoing("He'll probably try to get out of paying it") without fully expecting him to fly off the handle and make offensive remarks.
What I'm sure will matter is the great respecter of women calling HC a nasty woman
I'm glad the Democrats are going to win, and recognize that no one but Trump is responsible for his tone and language. But let's be honest here. Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
Which is all part of the game, and that's fine by me.
quote:My view is that this is very remote. I think the legal framework around the Presidency will prevent it, and I think that the 50 semi-autonomous states will prevent it. I think Trump will need to engineer an armed uprising, and however much that may seem a possibility, such an uprising would be smashed by the US Military. Trump may be the Commander in Chief, but the US Military serves the Constitution of the United States, the people, and the land itself too. Orders, as any underling knows, are what you make of them, and Trump is good at shouting, but not that good at shouting coherently.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If the Trumpkin wins, through some cataclysmic event engineered by Satan, you guyz in the US of A have a very, very nasty dictatorship to look forward to.
As does the rest of the world, alas....
IJ
quote:I apologize in that I had meant to address what came after the part I quoted, and forgot.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By trimming the end of what Stetson said, you removed its bite
quote:Not quite! It all depends what probably means. Three battleground states (Ohio, Arizona, Iowa) are very close. The others Trump has to win (North Carolina, Florida, Nevada) are within the margin of error, but all three look more likely to go to HC. But if Trump won all of those, he would still have to pull a rabbit out of the hat e.g win Pennsylvania, to cross the winning line. If you are a Trump optimist perhaps you see some kind of unlikely late surge triggered by the tanking of Gary Johnson's vote and/or some Wikileaks horrible revelation. Or maybe the unusual nature of this campaign beats the models?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Nate Silver says it's about over.
quote:I think it's entirely possible to be shocked without being surprised.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By trimming the end of what Stetson said, you removed its bite:quote:I think he is saying we Dems are not shocked in the sense of being " surprised", and that underneath a lot of the genuine anger expressed at his behavior there is an equal impulse to delight in the way he is showing his colors.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:You don't accuse someone like Trump of future wrongdoing("He'll probably try to get out of paying it") without fully expecting him to fly off the handle and make offensive remarks.
What I'm sure will matter is the great respecter of women calling HC a nasty woman
I'm glad the Democrats are going to win, and recognize that no one but Trump is responsible for his tone and language. But let's be honest here. Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
Which is all part of the game, and that's fine by me.
quote:Fortunately Brits don't get to vote in this one.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'Question Time' on BBC 1 last night (which I started listening to on BBC Radio Five Live) started with a question, ''Clinton or Trump?' The first to be asked to respond was a strong supporter of Trump and much to my horror quite a large number of the audience applauded. I listened for a bit longer because Kenneth Clark was on the panel and he is always worth listening to, but then gave up. It is very worrying to think that the US voting could just possibly do what the Brexit vote did - produce entirely the wrong result.
What also worries me is that the BBC seem to be giving a disproportionate amount of time to the Trump publicists and supporters which, in my opinion, is what they did during the referendum debate - giving a disproportionate amount of time to the exiters.
quote:I’m going to take issue with this. I thought Michelle Obama was amazing the other day. In the middle of the most unedifying presidential election campaign in the history of the world, she actually managed to deliver a searing put-down of Trump without rolling in the mud herself. It was seriously classy.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
Which is all part of the game, and that's fine by me.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, as if hacking isn't enough:
" Russia wants to monitor the U.S. presidential elections-- An act of political trolling at its finest ." (Salon)
A pity the powers that be seem to be responding to this proposal so dead seriously. It just gives the troll additional satisfaction. We need a very civil and diplomatic smart ass to craft a response to such things. Smart ass in chief?
quote:How do you get booed off the stage at a charity dinner? (Only a slight exaggeration.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Late edit. Trump showed his true colours at the Al Smith dinner. He's just a nasty man.
quote:How do you get booed out of a charity dinner? You forget the words of Robert Burns' To a Louse:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:How do you get booed off the stage at a charity dinner? (Only a slight exaggeration.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Late edit. Trump showed his true colours at the Al Smith dinner. He's just a nasty man.
Mainstream media write-up here.
Snarky lefty blogger write-up here.
For those who have a spare hour and can't get enough of wealthy New Yorkers at a formal dinner the full video is available.
quote:He started out OK - the first couple of minutes of his speech had a couple of digs at himself, and his Melania line was pretty funny.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Late edit. Trump showed his true colours at the Al Smith dinner. He's just a nasty man.
quote:SNL has been brilliant. My fav so far was their take on the 2nd debate, when Trump brought out all of Bill's ex-mistresses to sit in the front row. As if the woman who endured Watergate, impeachment hearings, and Ken Starr publishing in the morning paper daily blow-by-blow (pun intended) details of what Bill did to/with whom & when & where & how, would somehow be unnerved by seeing these familiar ghosts.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There is a scene in one of the SNL debate bits when one of the faux mods ask Kate McKinnon- Clinton if she wishes to interject while Baldwin-Trump is talking, and she says, "Oh, no,I'm good."
quote:So true. Our state's government-by-proposition system is, to say the least, cumbersome.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In the meantime, we need to not let the Presidential race distract us from the rest of the ballot. I have been putting aside a little time each night to study the California propositions. (I've already decided about the congressfolk.)
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:I’m going to take issue with this. I thought Michelle Obama was amazing the other day. In the middle of the most unedifying presidential election campaign in the history of the world, she actually managed to deliver a searing put-down of Trump without rolling in the mud herself. It was seriously classy.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
Which is all part of the game, and that's fine by me.
She did talk a lot about ‘our children’ but to call this ‘maternalistic handwringing’ seems to me patronising to the extreme. I think it’s a bit of very smart political savvy. Talking about motherhood is a very astute way of appealing to large numbers of women voters, whom the Democrats very much need to get to the polls. I get that not all women have children, but those who do tend to place them fairly high up their list of priorities.
quote:She is the First Lady to a Democratic POTUS, speaking against the Republican candidate in a media-covered event during a highly acrimonoius presidential campaign. If she didn't vet her comments with party operatives first, she was, at the very least, highly aware that they could have a beneficial impact on the Clinton campaign, and would be embarced by that campaign if they went over well.
I'm pretty sure Michelle never claimed to be speaking for the Democratic party.
quote:I seriously doubt that when HRC suggested(without the issue having been directly raised) that Trump would find a way to get out of paying future taxes, that what was going through her head was "Oh God, I hope he doesn't say something offensive and degrade the tone of this election even further."
You don't accuse someone like Trump of future wrongdoing("He'll probably try to get out of paying it") without fully expecting him to fly off the handle and make offensive remarks.
I'm glad the Democrats are going to win, and recognize that no one but Trump is responsible for his tone and language. But let's be honest here. Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
quote:It's one of those things, isn't it? If one of your lot is losing the plot you want to go for an early intervention and persuade them that what they are doing is counter productive. If one of their lot is losing the plot you want them to keep losing the plot.
I'm glad the Democrats are going to win, and recognize that no one but Trump is responsible for his tone and language. But let's be honest here. Contra Michelle Obama's maternalistic hand-wringing, the Democrats are not shocked and appalled by Trump's obnoxious behaviour. On the contrary, they love it, and are doing everything in their power to provoke more.
quote:Indeed. If Scooby Doo has taught us nothing else, it's that we have nothing to fear except crooked real estate developers!
Originally posted by Callan:
This is dishonest, only in the sense that Fred, Wilma and Daphne are dishonest when they whip the mask off the monster that was terrorising the town to reveal the all too familiar features of the guy who was hoping to inherit the 'haunted' mansion.
quote:That's true. The thing is, though, if you really do want those views to be on full display, and in fact are doing whatever you can to encourage the candidate to put them on full display, it becomes hard to claim with any degree of credibility that you are upset about children being exposed to them.
Hilary has successfully encouraged Trump to display his worst qualities in the Presidential debates. I think that this is a legitimate strategy - if your enemy holds views that are anathema to most Americans but covertly and not so covertly held by his base , then you really want them out on display.
quote:There are two Clintons are there not? It's much the same as the use of Dubya for George Bush The Less, as opposed to George Bush The Great.
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I must be tangential and ask: Why do people refer to Mme Clinton by her first name, but use her opponent's surname when referring to him? Is this not sexist in itself and create a very different perception of the candidates? It certainly smacks of the 50s rather than the current time.
quote:All of which is to say, "you're right but I refuse to admit it." Your analysis is fundamentally sexist. A woman and mother claiming to speak qua mother, but you know her mind better than she, or at least that she is able to admit, poor lamb.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mousethief wrote:
quote:She is the First Lady to a Democratic POTUS, speaking against the Republican candidate in a media-covered event during a highly acrimonoius presidential campaign. If she didn't vet her comments with party operatives first, she was, at the very least, highly aware that they could have a beneficial impact on the Clinton campaign, and would be embarced by that campaign if they went over well.
I'm pretty sure Michelle never claimed to be speaking for the Democratic party.
quote:I pretty much don't do that unless the conversation is manifestly casual ( like, when we are discussing the SNL skits.)
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:There are two Clintons are there not? It's much the same as the use of Dubya for George Bush The Less, as opposed to George Bush The Great.
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I must be tangential and ask: Why do people refer to Mme Clinton by her first name, but use her opponent's surname when referring to him? Is this not sexist in itself and create a very different perception of the candidates? It certainly smacks of the 50s rather than the current time.
quote:It's not about knowing how the mind of a woman works, it's about knowing how the mind of a politican works. I would say the same thing if it were Bill Clinton claiming to speak purely as a father in denouncing something that Trump said. The idea that his speech isn't being made with the interests of the campaign in mind just doesn't stand up to reality.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:All of which is to say, "you're right but I refuse to admit it." Your analysis is fundamentally sexist. A woman and mother claiming to speak qua mother, but you know her mind better than she, or at least that she is able to admit, poor lamb.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mousethief wrote:
quote:She is the First Lady to a Democratic POTUS, speaking against the Republican candidate in a media-covered event during a highly acrimonoius presidential campaign. If she didn't vet her comments with party operatives first, she was, at the very least, highly aware that they could have a beneficial impact on the Clinton campaign, and would be embarced by that campaign if they went over well.
I'm pretty sure Michelle never claimed to be speaking for the Democratic party.
quote:It is possible to be sincere and partisan at the same time. My point is that, taking the entire campaign as a collective whole, it's kind of contradictory for one participant to say that she is appalled that her children are hearing offensive remarks from the opposition, while another participant is doing everything in her power to ensure that the offensive remarks continue.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Michelle wasn't just doing something strategic for the campaign. I saw her speech. She was thoroughly, righteously furious about the possibility of having a president who both sexually assaults women, and brags about it.
She was also furious--as anyone should be--at the effect that basically saying what Trump did doesn't matter, that his victims don't matter, would have on girls and women in this country, on our culture, and around the world.
quote:Only because you continue to insist on seeing Michelle as an appendage to the Clinton campaign and not as a human being in her own right.
Originally posted by Stetson:
It is possible to be sincere and partisan at the same time. My point is that, taking the entire campaign as a collective whole, it's kind of contradictory for one participant to say that she is appalled that her children are hearing offensive remarks from the opposition, while another participant is doing everything in her power to ensure that the offensive remarks continue.
quote:I basically agree.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'd rather have da kids hear the ugly truth about the way right wingers view women than facilitate the quiet growth of those ideas by hiding them. I'd also rather said kids hear adults in power loudly condemning these views than seeing adults shrug them off.
quote:But there is a reason she could bring the heat and Clinton couldn't. The same reason Elisabeth Warren could harangue the bank heads and Obama couldn't. People outside of the office of President have the luxury of being flagrantly biased about an issue. Someone aspiring to be President has to discuss issues in a way that suggests that they have considered all angles.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Michelle wasn't just doing something strategic for the campaign. I saw her speech. She was thoroughly, righteously furious about the possibility of having a president who both sexually assaults women, and brags about it.
She was also furious--as anyone should be--at the effect that basically saying what Trump did doesn't matter, that his victims don't matter, would have on girls and women in this country, on our culture, and around the world.
quote:Well, first off, as you would know if you read my addendum, Ms. Obama gave the speech at an official campaign function. Anyone who does that, human-being-in-their-own-right though they may be, is functioning an appendage of the campaign.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only because you continue to insist on seeing Michelle as an appendage to the Clinton campaign and not as a human being in her own right.
Originally posted by Stetson:
It is possible to be sincere and partisan at the same time. My point is that, taking the entire campaign as a collective whole, it's kind of contradictory for one participant to say that she is appalled that her children are hearing offensive remarks from the opposition, while another participant is doing everything in her power to ensure that the offensive remarks continue.
quote:Another flash cross- association, but the collection of comments gave me flashbacks of reading some of Jim Jones's older sermons-- around the time when his rhetoric was beginning to implode against itself.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The New York Daily News has gone full tilt against Trump, with a 14 chapter editorial. (NYDN) Yahoo says they've gone "nuclear".
I've skimmed a little. Interesting, so far, and there are some good cartoons.
quote:"A whole side of Judges who are up for retention" Beavis & Butthead style snigger
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The Denver ballot was two sheets, both sides. We have quite a few ballot initiatives, and a whole side of judges who are up for retention. (Our State judges are appointed by a bipartisan commission, and stand for retention every few years.)
They have free ballot drop boxes around town, and they clearly listed the amount of postage required to return a ballot by mail on the return envelope. In rural counties, it is recommended that you do the free drop, so that you ballot won't have to be driven to Denver to be processed by the postal service and then driven back to your county seat.
They also have a text alert system, so that you know when your ballot has been mailed to you, received by the post office, received by the clerk, and counted. Overall, it's a pretty good system, although the Queen of Bashan still likes to go in to a polling place on election day.
quote:My local Arizona ballot was similar, but only one sheet both sides. There are several propositions, including raising the minimum wage and legalizing recreational marijuana, plus dozens of judges to be reaffirmed as in Denver.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The Denver ballot was two sheets, both sides. We have quite a few ballot initiatives, and a whole side of judges who are up for retention.
quote:
If you don’t get Trump’s meaning, his supporter Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio, does.
“Trump said to watch your precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” Webb told the Boston Globe. “I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American. I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
quote:Reuters has this: "Trump gains on Clinton, poll shows 'rigged' message resonates"...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Morale in the Trump camp must be rock bottom.
quote:Not American, but I won't be happy till the results are in. There's just a bit of me that's aware the people with the more trumpian attitudes don't seem to be that unpopular. And again the attitudes of minorities against other minorities is also flawed. And in my own demographic heard the 'white men are the most opressed ...' far too often.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Reuters has this: "Trump gains on Clinton, poll shows 'rigged' message resonates"...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Morale in the Trump camp must be rock bottom.
Any thoughts by our American Shipmates? Are we getting our hopes up in vain? Is it that post-truth may prevail, after all?!
quote:Do not fear:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Reuters has this: "Trump gains on Clinton, poll shows 'rigged' message resonates"...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Morale in the Trump camp must be rock bottom.
quote:Yeah right. Bring back George W and the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign Mid East Country triggering insurgency, populist uprisings, Civil war and now the threat of world war.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The world was so much nicer back then.
quote:The context of my statement was specifically laid out in the first line you did not quote - the discussion in this thread back in June of 2015. The rhetorical phrase "the world was much nicer back then" is often used when discussing things smaller then the whole world. However, I probably should have used the phrase "the world seemed so much nice back then".
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Yeah right. Bring back George W and the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign Mid East Country triggering insurgency, populist uprisings, Civil war and now the threat of world war.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The world was so much nicer back then.
The trumps of this world are not aliens appearing from the swamp into the Garden of Eden, they are symptomatic of what has gone before.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[...] (no links)
quote:First of all, I would encourage every American to remember how many times in the past year they did not pick up the phone because the caller ID had the word "survey" on it, or how many times they have avoided some kid waving a clipboard on the sidewalk. Polls only tell you what the people who took the poll think.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Reuters has this: "Trump gains on Clinton, poll shows 'rigged' message resonates"...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Morale in the Trump camp must be rock bottom.
Any thoughts by our American Shipmates? Are we getting our hopes up in vain? Is it that post-truth may prevail, after all?!
quote:... and maybe that character trumps colour and gender?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think America is about to wake up to the fact that it is fundamentally brown. About time, too.
quote:For even more fun, click on the "printer-friendly view" of the thread, hit Ctrl+F for "Trump", and click through the occurrences of his name.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And I must say it is really interesting going back to about page 8 in this thread to June 16th of last year and reading the discussion of Trump.
The world was so much nicer back then.
quote:The category college grads would, I assume, include B.Comms and MBAs, corporate lawyers, doctors(at least some of whom must hate "socialized medicine" enough to vote GOP), not to mention(in smaller numbers) military officers and graduates of accredited evangelical seminaries. Yeah, I could easily imagine that adding up to 42% of the vote.
And, to the extent that college-educated white males have tended to be the powerful elite in this country, many of them are Republicans.
quote:You're missing several things here. Not all of those falling in the 42% of the white college-educated men who will vote for Trump "want" him. Some do. But some are voting for Trump because they are loyal Republicans and think/hope/pray that he will turn out to be okay on at least some of the things they care about. And some of them simply loathe Clinton and are voting for what they see as the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I get the whole uneducated white male fear and hatred of what is going on in America thing. But, 42% of white supposedly educated men want Trump. Has the great recession passed by that many white college educated males as well? Because if it has, the theory of education making you a better man may not be true.
quote:I just had a "get out and vote" circular from my local nutty republican. His line is "both candidates are deeply flawed", followed by "if you want to continue in Obama's direction - changing the successful American culture, language, Christianity and traditions, open borders, allowing terrorists, criminals and disease into our country. If you can't take care of yourself, vote Clinton."
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not all of those falling in the 42% of the white college-educated men who will vote for Trump "want" him. Some do. But some are voting for Trump because they are loyal Republicans and think/hope/pray that he will turn out to be okay on at least some of the things they care about.
quote:I believe this to what you are referring.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What is this I hear about the American language ?
It was the late Michael Flanders who, at an F & S concert in New York (IIRC) in 1967, reminded his audience that, if it wasn't for the English, they'd all be Spanish!
I wonder what Trump would have made of that?
IJ
quote:I first heard this observation about the potential danger of the public seeing "how sausages were made" in an episode of "The West Wing" (Five Votes Down). It was in the context of an attempt by the White House staff to get back 5 votes to save a piece of gun control legislation. And it contained some pretty dubious maneuvering by White House staff on behalf of the President both to save the legislation and save the President's face. At that kind of coal face, ends, means, morality and purism seem to get mashed up together and people do what they think they have to to get a result. There are implied limits, but I doubt they are written down anywhere!
The truth is, if we saw the raw email from the Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders campaigns we would surely see similar political calculations over tricky issues, deliberations how to quash negative media narratives and intemperate comments made about adversaries or even allies. (Whereas the Trump campaign emails are probably in their own category of insanity.) What we see in the Podesta emails is the grist of political life. It’s doesn’t make our politicians fundamentally dishonest or our democracy a sham.
After seeing how the Clinton sausage got ground, perhaps the voting public will now be more likely to view the contents of stolen emails through the prism of political reality. Without a truly scandalous bombshell, each subsequent cyberattack on Clinton’s team, or that of another politician, may be greeted with bigger and bigger shrugs.
quote:This.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You're missing several things here. Not all of those falling in the 42% of the white college-educated men who will vote for Trump "want" him. Some do. But some are voting for Trump because they are loyal Republicans and think/hope/pray that he will turn out to be okay on at least some of the things they care about. And some of them simply loathe Clinton and are voting for what they see as the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I get the whole uneducated white male fear and hatred of what is going on in America thing. But, 42% of white supposedly educated men want Trump. Has the great recession passed by that many white college educated males as well? Because if it has, the theory of education making you a better man may not be true.
Also, college-educated people have traditionally voted Republican. It's been pointed out that they are more likely to be in the "elite," but of course the vast majority of college-educated white people aren't elite; they're just middle-class and upper-middle-class, so as such they have had some strong investments in the status quo and have thus voted Republican. Their turn to the Democrats is relatively recent. The 42% statistic that looks too high to you is in fact low.
As for white people without college educations and their "white male fear and hatred," sure, there's that. But there's also the fact that they used to vote[d] Democrat, and the Democrats haven't done jack shit for them, so they've gradually switched parties over the last 40 years. If it were all down to racism, they'd have all switched their votes in the 60s and 70s.
quote:Some of my fellow clergywomen are rocking the slogan, "That's
Originally posted by Golden Key:
People are having great fun claiming and remaking Trump's "nasty woman" comment. (PopSugar) The mug shown says it particularly well, I think.
quote:Speaking as a librarian I find the deliberate messing up of library shelving very upsetting.
I met that charming idea in a self-published book about Odin as Allfather in the anthropology section of our library, and spent my time hiding it behind the others.
quote:As I understand it (and I'm sure someone will tell me if this is apocryphal) F&S renamed it "A song of patriotic prejudice" because some of the idiots it is mocking took it seriously and claimed it as their anthem.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I got somewhere very odd when following the link to Flanders and Swann. Someone in the comments, referring to the way that people listening to performances mistook the mockery for praise of the English, compared it to the way the neo-Nazis used "Tomorrow belongs to me" fromm Cabaret as an anthem. So I looked up that. And the comments btl were a scarey return to some Americans who hold to the theory that God meant all the races to live in homogenous groups. Presumably some of those people are supporting Trump. Thank goodness he doesn't have a song.
(I met that charming idea in a self-published book about Odin as Allfather in the anthropology section of our library, and spent my time hiding it behind the others. It never occurred to me that Christians would share the idea.) The difference between the Odinists and the Christians seems to be that the former thought that people should stay where their races began. (Except, presumably, the Aryans.)
quote:I went through serious arguments with my conscience on the subject. And I was somewhat concerned that it had found a home on the shelves of a public library in a multicultural area. Which also had an active NF/BNP presence. It wasn't quite "Mein Kampf", but was definitely arguing for people to go home. (I don't suppose the authors would have found a massive welcome in Norway, though perhaps some.)
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Speaking as a librarian I find the deliberate messing up of library shelving very upsetting.
quote:I certainly agree with that.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair enough. I've said it often enough that I'm in the Toby Ziegler Camp. "Don't tempt fate".
quote:Aye, the Donald is in the details.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Carex
You're right. There is still plenty of scope for surprises. The road map to a Trump win is unlikely but at present the odds of him finding that road are about 15% for a reason. And that reason includes the degree of correlation of polls errors and inaccuracies across the battleground states.
Short version. If Trump has a 15% chance of winning there must be at least one road map which enables that. Personally, I think he has to win Minnesota plus just about all the more evenly matched states, otherwise he's gone. But that's just a personal judgment call. There are other ways!
Late Edit: nice bit of clarification from Nate Silver.
quote:I would rather, as the linked article states, see "some of his more well-heeled customers . . . boycotting his hotels and golf courses and refusing to dine in restaurants on his properties."
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A boycott of stores which carry Ivanka Trump's products is underway.
I'm not sure if that's fair. What do you think?
quote:Seems fair to me. Ivanka has been closely integrated with her father's campaign, being in charge of various efforts such as outreach to women voters (great job!) and get-out-the-vote efforts during the primaries (oops!) so it's fair to judge her by that metric. If she'd restricted herself to a few photo ops where the candidate showed off his smiling, happy family it would probably be unfair, but at this point it's no more unfair to hold Ivanka accountable for her links with her father's campaign than it is to hold Steve Bannon accountable for being Trump's campaign manager.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A boycott of stores which carry Ivanka Trump's products is underway.
I'm not sure if that's fair. What do you think?
quote:It's interesting the way certain narratives persist despite all available evidence to the contrary. If you're curious the data visualization efforts continue with further refinements.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Fwiw, which is probably about nothing, I went to early voting yesterday at the local library and voted for Johnson. Don't care much for blowhards like Trump or pathological liars like Clinton.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
quote:. . . and yet . . .
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
When it comes to lying, Trump is a beginner compared to Illary...
quote:Nice of you to drop back in again.
Originally posted by romanlion:
When it comes to lying, Trump is a beginner compared to Illary...
quote:[ETA the Ship's post-posting message "now wash your hands" seems especially appropriate sometimes...]
Do you have any cogent arguments as to why it would be preferable to see Trump in office as opposed to Clinton?
quote:Agree, that she's more than just an accidental family member, and I also think there are few rules of fairness when it comes to consumer decisions about frivolous goods.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Seems fair to me. Ivanka has been closely integrated with her father's campaign, being in charge of various efforts such as outreach to women voters (great job!) and get-out-the-vote efforts during the primaries (oops!) so it's fair to judge her by that metric. If she'd restricted herself to a few photo ops where the candidate showed off his smiling, happy family it would probably be unfair, but at this point it's no more unfair to hold Ivanka accountable for her links with her father's campaign than it is to hold Steve Bannon accountable for being Trump's campaign manager.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A boycott of stores which carry Ivanka Trump's products is underway.
I'm not sure if that's fair. What do you think?
quote:No, I think romanlion has a point. What does it take to be black belt or Jedi master? Skill. What skill does it take to be a good liar? Thinking. So romanlion is saying that Clinton is a skilled thinker and that Trump is not. Which is something born out by the evidence.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:. . . and yet . . .
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
When it comes to lying, Trump is a beginner compared to Illary...
Politifact rates 71% of Donald Trump's statements as 'mostly false', 'false', or 'pants on fire' while Hillary Clinton gets is rated at 27% on the same metric, and yet it's the latter that's held to be a much worse liar. There is clearly some assessment going on here that goes well beyond established facts.
quote:Legendary?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
quote:Yes there is. It is called "but I know better".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
. . . and yet . . .
Politifact rates 71% of Donald Trump's statements as 'mostly false', 'false', or 'pants on fire' while Hillary Clinton gets is rated at 27% on the same metric, and yet it's the latter that's held to be a much worse liar. There is clearly some assessment going on here that goes well beyond established facts.
quote:As good a term as any for a tall tale.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Legendary?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:As good a term as any for a tall tale.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Legendary?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
quote:Not Inauguration Day. That was decided in the 1930s. Before that Inauguration Day was on March 4, the day the "new" Constitution first went into effect in 1789.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
You can tell that these dates were decided when the electors had to travel by horseback.
quote:Quick summary, the Great America PAC not only was very interested in receiving the money, despite understanding very clearly that it was from a foreign national (a big no-no in U.S. election law) but was very helpful with ways to launder the contribution through an unrelated 501(c)(4). Go read the whole thing for details.
The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.
quote:It's a fine line. Not exactly "Caesar's wife".
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly argued that there is nothing wrong with her family’s arrangements, because no explicit quid pro quo ― that is, exchange of cash for specific political favors ― has surfaced. This argument has troubled many Democrats, who note that the campaign’s defense relies on the weak definition of corruption outlined in the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
quote:Except for Bill Clinton of course...
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is exactly the "defence" used by scumbag rapists since time immemorial.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Some of my fellow clergywomen are rocking the slogan, "That's
Originally posted by Golden Key:
People are having great fun claiming and remaking Trump's "nasty woman" comment. (PopSugar) The mug shown says it particularly well, I think.
Reverend Nasty Woman to you"...
Should be on a plaque, to go on their office doors.
quote:Just interjecting that Humpty-Dumpty managed to "believe 6 impossible things before breakfast". Are you trying to beat his record?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's capacity for lying has been pretty well exposed.
How then, would you describe Illary's capacity for lying?
Black belt?
Jedi-master?
When it comes to lying, Trump is a beginner compared to Illary...
quote:That's another good example of the "Clinton Rules" in action. It's not really fruit of Wikileaks poisoned tree since it's been out there since at least last April. (The whole Wikileaks thing seems to be a series of non-revelations or old news premised on the idea that stolen apples are sweeter.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, I picked that one up, Croesos. But also this one.
Granted this is fruit of the Wikileaks poisoned tree, it still doesn't look too wonderful for Hillary. This is a telling quote from the Huff Post article.
quote:It's a fine line. Not exactly "Caesar's wife".
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly argued that there is nothing wrong with her family’s arrangements, because no explicit quid pro quo ― that is, exchange of cash for specific political favors ― has surfaced. This argument has troubled many Democrats, who note that the campaign’s defense relies on the weak definition of corruption outlined in the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
quote:Nice of you to drop back in again.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Except for Bill Clinton of course...
Illary handled his defense.
quote:
Do you have any cogent arguments as to why it would be preferable to see Trump in office as opposed to Clinton?
quote:Unless Trump wins, then welcome (even more) unstable world.
Originally posted by bib:
I will be so relieved once this election fiasco is over. It seems to be going on forever.
quote:So the "scandal" is that the Hillary Clinton campaign is actively using political strategy? What a scoop!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos
I did know it was an old story. What was new from the emails was the concern of the advisors over the appearance of the deal and the efforts they had to make in getting Hillary to see that. That's about political nous.
) But it's a good exploration of how Congress makes sausage.
quote:I don't think anyone does, and that is part of the problem. Clinton is part of the system and Trump is perceived to not be.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Why anyone who's aware of the world, beyond their own lives (not necessarily a criticism), thinks that politics is clean.
quote:Remind me who the Governor of Indiana is... Oh, that's right. It's Mike Pence, Trump's running mate.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jack-booted thugs. Make it hard for black people to vote and then when someone tries to fill that gap, shut them down.
quote:...but, AIUI, it wasn't just an attempt. The cops took the voter registrations, already filled out. Something like 45,000, IIRC.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Let's just hope that this attempt at bullying catches wide media attention.
And it does seem to be. There's a link to the menu. Wine by the spoonful. (Might be appropriate if it's a really expensive, really good, very old wine.) "The Benjamin", described in the article and the first item on the menu, sounds so vile they should give you a chaser of Pepto Bismol.
quote:From that article, I'm confused about what actually happened, but at the least, the allegation that 45,000 voter registrations were taken is contested:
Democrats are hoping that former senator Evan Bayh can win back his old seat, which is being vacated by retiring Sen. Daniel Coats (R). Bayh is in a tight race with Rep. Todd C. Young (R).
quote:At the very least, it looks like voter intimidation, but I wish there was more objective coverage
The news release also stated: “When the search warrant was executed on October 4, copies were made of voter application forms and the originals were left with representatives of Indiana Voter Registration Project, a subsidiary of Patriot Majority USA.” It also said that applications received by voter registration offices were being processed “according to established policies.”
quote:A Perfect Spy comes to mind once again, when the hero writes of his unwilling involvement in his con artist dad's dodgy attempts to get elected as Liberal MP for Gulworth North:
"By law, any groups that register voters are required to turn in all the registrations they receive, to make sure that they don't decide to turn in only the forms of prospective voters who favor their party,"
quote:
Dear Belinda... I really must own to being fascinated by this glimpse of the democratic process at work. What seems at first to be such a rough instrument turns out to be equipped with all sorts of refined checks and balances...
quote:It gets worse. "This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It." (HuffPost)
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:McCain is overdue for the glue factory. Maybe the cowgirl running against him can send him there if she wins.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We've got McCain suggesting Republicans preventing a Supreme Court nominee for an entire presidential term.
quote:I don't usually throw the word "treason" around, and I don't know if letting the Supreme Court die out would legally be treason.
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.
quote:Yeah. I think you've covered this very well. I was perusing the Foxnews website for entertainment earlier. It is in equal measure hilarious and despair-inducing. However, reading the comments section on one of the articles, there are clearly a group of people who ***KNOW*** that Hilary is corrupt. No amount of evidence, or investigation will in any way diminish this view.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So the "scandal" is that the Hillary Clinton campaign is actively using political strategy? What a scoop!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos
I did know it was an old story. What was new from the emails was the concern of the advisors over the appearance of the deal and the efforts they had to make in getting Hillary to see that. That's about political nous.
Seriously this seems like a combination of Clinton Rules #2 (Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.) and #3 (The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.).
And for some reason you think that this example of Hillary Clinton being warned about the deliberate bad faith with which people would interpret using charity money to help AIDS victims is a scandal on par with the outright illegal solicitation of foreign money by Trump campaign surrogates? The term "false equivalence" seems somehow inadequate.
quote:Wikipedia describes the Huffington Post as
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Indiana raid and wanting more objective coverage:
"Mike Pence Used State Police To Suppress Voter Registration In Indiana, Advocacy Group Claims. A raid this month seized 45,000 voter registration applications, most of them from black voters." (HuffPost)
quote:That's hardly what I'd describe as "more objective".
an overtly liberal/left commentary outlet
quote:Indiana has a fairly low voter registration (69.2% of voting-age citizens in 2012) and turnout rate (57.7% of voting-age citizens in 2012), even by American standards. Those numbers place them at #38 and #37, respectively, on a list of all American states plus the District of Columbia. It could be argued that the reason Indiana is a "foregone conclusion" is due in part to the current shape of the Indiana electorate and that those currently in power have no wish to see that change. After all, they owe their positions of authority to the current status quo, which is one of the reasons that voting franchise problems are normally intractable to legislative solutions.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Indiana story is very puzzling. In terms of outcomes, Indiana is pretty much a foregone conclusion for Trump - a 7% lead in the popular vote and winning chances of almost 90%. You'd need a heck of a lot of fraudulently registered dead or none-existent people to overcome that.
quote:It might not be quite that easy. Article II, section 2, clause 3 provides a temporary work-around for legislative obstructionism of this sort.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It."(HuffPost)
Per the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank:
quote:
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.
quote:Inelegant, and effectively limiting appointments to spans of at most two years, but it is a work-around and it is constitutional. Essentially this would mean staffing the Supreme Court (and possibly lower courts) with temps.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
quote:The constitution also helpfully defines what treason is (and isn't):
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't usually throw the word "treason" around, and I don't know if letting the Supreme Court die out would legally be treason.
But, ethically and common sense-ically, it's damn close.
quote:So legislators using (or refusing to use) their constitutionally mandated powers definitely doesn't qualify as treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
quote:One of the earlier drafts of the U.S. Constitution allowed impeachment in cases of "maladministration" (i.e. screwing up). That provision was removed because it became apparent that there was no way to reasonably distinguish between "maladministration" and "making decisions I don't like".
Originally posted by HCH:
No, that would be malfeasance. One of the weaknesses of the U.S. constitution is that there is no way to get redress if Congress simply does not do its job, other than to wait for the next election.
quote:There's many a slip twixt a legal opinion and the law, especially one filtered through the press.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Miss Amanda--
quote:It gets worse. "This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It." (HuffPost)
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:McCain is overdue for the glue factory. Maybe the cowgirl running against him can send him there if she wins.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We've got McCain suggesting Republicans preventing a Supreme Court nominee for an entire presidential term.
Per the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank:
quote:I don't usually throw the word "treason" around, and I don't know if letting the Supreme Court die out would legally be treason.
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.
But, ethically and common sense-ically, it's damn close.
quote:We'll know that is really true when Texas executes a corporation.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Mind you, this is the judicial system which held that a corporation was a person, so anything goes I s'pose.
quote:But do they have free speech rights in other countries? Thanks to our Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizens United case, they do here, which means that the government is not allowed to limit corporate spending on political campaigns.
Originally posted by Gee D:
simontoad, it's not only in the US that a corporation is a person. It is here, NZ, most of Canada, England and probably every other country which takes its legal tradition from England. It's just not a natural person.
quote:Oh, like the clinton foundation?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
And since a U.S. corporation can be owned by foreign nationals, it effectively provides a legal loophole for politcal donations from foreign nationals.
quote:I don't have a narrative around the clinton foundation, it's out there for all to see.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd love to see you engage more Romanlion. Why don't you share your narrative around the Clinton Foundation, and engage with some of the criticism of your position. I'd appreciate a reasoned view from the American right here.
quote:.
Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton.
quote:A competent and experienced politician who is currently campaigning for the Presidency of the USA against a developmentally-challenged gorilla with views on race relations and women's rights that would embarrass pond slime?
Originally posted by romanlion:
"My position" as you describe it, has only been to provide a minuscule dash of the reality of who/what Illary is
quote:Competent? Man, you really read the news that suits your view don't you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:A competent and experienced politician who is currently campaigning for the Presidency of the USA against a developmentally-challenged gorilla with views on race relations and women's rights that would embarrass pond slime?
Originally posted by romanlion:
"My position" as you describe it, has only been to provide a minuscule dash of the reality of who/what Illary is
quote:When you have a GOP candidate suggesting revolution, you hare getting very close.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
quote:simontoad,
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:"My position" as you describe it, has only been to provide a minuscule dash of the reality of who/what Illary is, against the anti-Trump maelstrom that this thread evolved into a hundred pages ago.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd love to see you engage more Romanlion. Why don't you share your narrative around the Clinton Foundation, and engage with some of the criticism of your position. I'd appreciate a reasoned view from the American right here.
The clintons are awful in every way, and should never be returned to the White House.
quote:And she is still ahead of Donald Trump? Either Trump is awful or the opinion polls are very, very wrong.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Competent? Man, you really read the news that suits your view don't you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:A competent and experienced politician who is currently campaigning for the Presidency of the USA against a developmentally-challenged gorilla with views on race relations and women's rights that would embarrass pond slime?
Originally posted by romanlion:
"My position" as you describe it, has only been to provide a minuscule dash of the reality of who/what Illary is
She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. At that she is totally competent.
Even her closest aides express disdain for her idiocy...
quote:Sorry, Jedi, no disrespect for someone I've never met, but the first and second halves of that sentence are more than just 'surprising'. They are incompatible.
Originally posted by jedijudy:
My brilliant brother is surprisingly a conspiracy theorist. ...
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
quote:The Republican Party and other right-wingers have spent the last two and a half decades trying to make some charges stick to the Clintons, and none ever have. That fact alone makes them competent politicians.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Competent? Man, you really read the news that suits your view don't you?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The Republican Party and other right-wingers have spent the last two and a half decades trying to make some charges stick to the Clintons, and none ever have. That fact alone makes them competent politicians.
quote:I think you're defining "competence" differently than romanlion here. Hillary Clinton is "incompetent" because she keeps failing to fulfill her proper narrative role as defined by her political enemies. Take the Benghazi hearings. Hillary Clinton was either supposed to break down sobbing, confessing her crimes and promising to never appear in public again, or go all out with a vilainous gloat along the lines of "Mwa ha ha! Your puny subpœna powers are no match for my glorious wickedness!!!" Then Trey Gowdy was supposed to throw a bucket of water on her, melting her into a puddle. Instead Clinton made Gowdy and his compatriots look like overwrought idiots. So by that metric, Clinton isn't even competent enough to take stage directions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More to the point, if Hillary Clinton is as incompetent as romanlion suggests, what does that make her many accusers, who have tried and failed repeatedly to bring her down?
quote:You are right. I seem to have been schmoozed after all!
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Sorry, Jedi, no disrespect for someone I've never met, but the first and second halves of that sentence are more than just 'surprising'. They are incompatible.
Originally posted by jedijudy:
My brilliant brother is surprisingly a conspiracy theorist. ...
quote:Actually they are not. It is a fallacy to assume the brighter the person the more likely they will reach the correct conclusion on every subject. Or even that they are equally informed in every area.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Sorry, Jedi, no disrespect for someone I've never met, but the first and second halves of that sentence are more than just 'surprising'. They are incompatible.
Originally posted by jedijudy:
My brilliant brother is surprisingly a conspiracy theorist. ...
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Exhibit A: Ben Carson.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Also, no insult meant to jj's brother, intelligence and crazy often quite happily cohabit the same skull.
quote:This morning I heard a Trump supporter praising the "non-politician" nature of Trump as being an asset. On the subject of his inexperience, the remark was that they were sure he would surround himself with experienced advisors.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is certainly interesting that experience is being seen as a deficit, and inexperience a plus.
quote:This time, but not last time I presume?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like something, or somebody, has forced his hand.
quote:I don't think anybody's forced his hand.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:This time, but not last time I presume?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like something, or somebody, has forced his hand.
quote:The TV news networks, for one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Who benefits from that?
quote:Get your coat, Og.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Do you suppose it was in his junk mail box?
quote:Just stop for a moment and think about what that means. The ratings or entertainment value of news stories is more important than the election of the President. Let's keep this show on the road. We can't have an election blow-out; far too boring. Lets get some more mileage out of the competition. Maybe it will go to extra innings?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:The TV news networks, for one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Who benefits from that?
"Stay tuned, folks, this could get interesting."
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Competent? Man, you really read the news that suits your view don't you?
quote:Have I ever told you that I love you our Enoch?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
quote:Thank you Enoch, that allusion brightened my morning considerably.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
quote:Yeah, exactly. At the expense of public sanity, I might add.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Just stop for a moment and think about what that means. The ratings or entertainment value of news stories is more important than the election of the President. Let's keep this show on the road. We can't have an election blow-out; far too boring. Lets get some more mileage out of the competition. Maybe it will go to extra innings?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:The TV news networks, for one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Who benefits from that?
"Stay tuned, folks, this could get interesting."
quote:Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
quote:I would challenge that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
quote:Unless Trump has been a government employee or dependent thereof all of his adult life, yes really.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I would challenge that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
He appears, certainly on the basis of actual evidence, to have been singularly unwise in his business dealings, to the extent that if he'd just left it all in the bank, he'd be considerably richer than he is now.
So unless 'making his way in the market' is code for 'loses money hand over fist', no. Not really.
quote:It's a bit rich to call Clinton a parasite when her principal opponent is a serial bankrupt, fraudster, tax evader, misogynist, and one of the world's most prolific collectors of frequent liar points, with no record of service to anyone but himself. However, if that's the kind of person you want for president, he is right there ready and waiting for your vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
Hillary has never been anything but a parasite. Never produced a product, never built a building, never created a job or provided a service. She has sucked taxpayer dollars all her life. And yet....
She and her husband leave the White House "not only dead broke, but in debt." And in the span of a decade are worth a quarter of a billion dollars.
Selling their influence, hocking access, and shaking down very comer in the name of a charity that is anything but...ask the people of Haiti.
So different, yes...
quote:Yeah, you're right.
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
quote:It's a bit rich to call Clinton a parasite when her principal opponent is a serial bankrupt, fraudster, tax evader, misogynist, and one of the world's most prolific collectors of frequent liar points, with no record of service to anyone but himself. However, if that's the kind of person you want for president, he is right there ready and waiting for your vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different, from the home life of our dear Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
... She is utterly incompetent, except when it comes to using her political influence to enrich herself and her family. ...
Hillary has never been anything but a parasite. Never produced a product, never built a building, never created a job or provided a service. She has sucked taxpayer dollars all her life. And yet....
She and her husband leave the White House "not only dead broke, but in debt." And in the span of a decade are worth a quarter of a billion dollars.
Selling their influence, hocking access, and shaking down very comer in the name of a charity that is anything but...ask the people of Haiti.
So different, yes...
quote:Actually, per Wikipedia, she's worked hard (including manual labor). Some examples:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hillary has never been anything but a parasite. Never produced a product, never built a building, never created a job or provided a service. She has sucked taxpayer dollars all her life.
quote:romanlion is not speculating.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For tbose who don't know, 'Carlos Danger' is the pseudonym used by Anthony Weiner when he was illegally sexting others. Whether these emails in question were on his equipment, or his wife's, and if so how they got there, and what connection if any they have to Hillary Clinton in any case, these are all matters subject to investigation. romanlion is speculating.
quote:Is that when she laughed about getting a child rapist off with time served?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Extensive legal work, including Legal Aid.
quote:Really a rock-and-a-hard-place situation if you ask me. Investigate, and people think you are biased for the opponent. Don't investigate, and people think you are biased for the person under investigation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I heard on CNN this evening that there has been a recognised principle (not a law) within the FBI which says that such hand grenade throwing within 60 days of an election is to be avoided. Precisely to avoid this sort of chaos.
quote:Because if Comey's ass and reputation weren't on the line, you would never have heard about this latest.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would like to know why the FBI won't comment on whether Trump's ties to Russia are being investigated, but the moment emails that they don't even know will reveal anything abiut Clinton are discovered the FBI Director is writing to Congress.
quote:Whatever helps you sleep at night...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
No, she laughed about her client, not about the rape. She was forced into taking the case, and had to do the best she could to defend the guy.
quote:I heard the same thing from the talking heads on CNN. It was pointed out by David Gergen, one of the most level-headed commentators that they have, that if the Clinton camp hadn't dragged out complying with the FBI's requests this would have been over much sooner.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What Comey's letter also reveals, yet again, is the vexed question of the accountability of the Director of the FBI. It seems extraordinary to me that he can throw a hand grenade into the Presidential election at this late stage of the campaign. Not even J Edgar Hoover, the quintessential law unto himself, ever did anything like this. I heard on CNN this evening that there has been a recognised principle (not a law) within the FBI which says that such hand grenade throwing within 60 days of an election is to be avoided. Precisely to avoid this sort of chaos.
quote:So pissing away daddy's money and those of countless numbers of subcontractors, vendors, and investors is "making your own way" but being an employee working at a job that happens to be funded by the government (like say, a police officer, military personnel or firefighter) is being a leech? Got it.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Unless Trump has been a government employee or dependent thereof all of his adult life, yes really.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I would challenge that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
He appears, certainly on the basis of actual evidence, to have been singularly unwise in his business dealings, to the extent that if he'd just left it all in the bank, he'd be considerably richer than he is now.
So unless 'making his way in the market' is code for 'loses money hand over fist', no. Not really.
quote:Right. Cause Illary has been a dedicated police officer/military personnel/firefighter all her life...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:So pissing away daddy's money and those of countless numbers of subcontractors, vendors, and investors is "making your own way" but being an employee working at a job that happens to be funded by the government (like say, a police officer, military personnel or firefighter) is being a leech? Got it.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Unless Trump has been a government employee or dependent thereof all of his adult life, yes really.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I would challenge that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump at least had to make his way in the market.
He appears, certainly on the basis of actual evidence, to have been singularly unwise in his business dealings, to the extent that if he'd just left it all in the bank, he'd be considerably richer than he is now.
So unless 'making his way in the market' is code for 'loses money hand over fist', no. Not really.
quote:Your conflation of principles there is too ironic for an apt description...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He's buggered up the due process of the election.
quote:He would have been following the DOJ traditional playbook which says don't make stuff public within 60 days prior to an election.
Originally posted by Prester John:
And if he hadn't said anything until after the election?
quote:Shoulda stuck with the "traditional playbook"...
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:He would have been following the DOJ traditional playbook which says don't make stuff public within 60 days prior to an election.
Originally posted by Prester John:
And if he hadn't said anything until after the election?
quote:You mean the attempted sting by Fox news which ended with the police finding Weiner did nothing wrong? Adn the girl in connection with that was 17.
Originally posted by romanlion:
For those who don't know, 'Carlos Danger' is the 'sexting underage girls' pseudonym of Anthony Wiener,
quote:First statement. Disagree
Originally posted by Martin60:
The legal narrative is utterly irrelevant.
[snip]
This is not a rational process.
quote:She won't be able to do anything for them because she will more than likely have to get any legislation past a hostile Republican congress.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Clinton is the only rational choice, no matter that she can do nothing for Trump's core constituency, the lower half of the working class.
This is not a rational process.
quote:Neither side has a policy that will transfer power=money from the powerful (not the Mexicans and the Chinese) to the powerless by the taxation of wealth. The only mechanism that the working class can have for themselves is unionization.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Martin60
romanlion's question gets a ditto from me. In the face of irrationality and the increasing power of the powerful, human liberty is at risk. How is to be defended?
I can see the argument that legal and democratic processes have been suborned by the actions of the powerful to such an extent that many people have lost faith in them. How is that faith to be restored?
The peaceful transfer of power is an important defence of freedom. If that process itself is being suborned, discredited, then surely a first priority in the defence of freedom is to protect that process against such suborning?
Otherwise we fall into despair, or anarchy, or totalitarianism.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seen on Facebook: "The continued existence of Anthony Wiener is proof the Clintons aren't secret murderers."
quote:Inviting the other poster to fill in the blanks in a sentence you yourself admit should be in Hell equals a personal insult by stealth, and a complete disregard for recent host interventions about your clarity.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Screw the two tier disenfranchised white working class? The 'top' tier being men and the bottom their female, child and elderly dependents.
I can only say two words to that in Hell.
The first is 'Screw.'
quote:If one observes that there are blanks in a sentence, is it not rather presumptuous to suggest one has been "invited" to fill them?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Inviting the other poster to fill in the blanks in a sentence.../hosting
quote:What? Trump is at variance with the facts?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump's "worse than Watergate" categorisation seems to be at variance with both the published facts and certainly this more detailed article.
quote:Depends on whether the Republicans grow up between now and then.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Is there any sort of end date for the whole e-mail thing? Twenty-one years from now, will some ancient, senile congressman take a leak in the local park, 100 feet from where children are playing, and have his computer ceased and searched? Will there be an old 2002 e-mail from Hillary Clinton, perhaps, or perhaps not, posted from a secure server? Will Hillary, age 90, be taken in for another eight hour grilling?
quote:He can't until the election is over, out of respect for separation of powers. He may request that Comey stands down while his pre-election behaviour is subject to an internal investigation. It would be very tempting to fire him for complete stupidity but I suspect that might provoke a different kind of law suit.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
This is so clearly an attempt to influence the election. Obama should fire his ass
quote:Ur assuming people are still listening.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Politically romanlion is winning here hands down.
Because Clinton is losing hands down.
...
quote:But there's the day-to-day stuff to do, and small stuff preventing gov't shutdowns and keeping benefits payments going.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But the next election is never more than two years away (in the case of the House and 1/3 of the Senate on a rolling basis) and cynically speaking, legislators are very very unlikely to do anything that is apt to cost them re-election. I'm not too fussed about this weakness in the Constitution. Things will get handled though it may take longer than it ought.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:When you have a GOP candidate suggesting revolution, you hare getting very close.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
quote:Ever see the film "Network"?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:The TV news networks, for one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Who benefits from that?
quote:Many of his supporters don't see how "utterly repugnant, inept, dishonest, disreputable and despicable" Trump is because he is mirroring them. They don't see him as those things, because they see him as a true American Patriot. Just as there is a rump of Englishmen who want to restore the Land of Hope and Glory, so there is a rump, a very large rump (but not large enough if the polls are right), of Americans who want to have their perceived needs catered for before any other American. They want women in their place, blacks in their place, and Hispanics and Asians out.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
...
I find this whole election thing increasingly scary. I'm genuinely frightened that, given the UK's demonstrable propensity to vote insanely in the EU referendum, the US might actually do the inconceivable and elect that ghastly man as President. I can quite understand people not wanting to vote for Mrs Clinton - except when the only real alternative seems to be to vote for that man. If I had a vote in the States, I'd vote for Satan rather than that man, because the outcome would have to be better. Why do people not seem to see how utterly repugnant, inept, dishonest, disreputable and despicable he is?
I just don't get it. Why has that man's every appearance in public (or, frankly, in private) not convinced people that he should not ever be allowed anywhere near the tack room in which are stored the reins of power when they're not actually in use, let alone to actually wield them?
quote:That would be a great question to ask in the Styx.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
[Aside]
quote:If one observes that there are blanks in a sentence, is it not rather presumptuous to suggest one has been "invited" to fill them?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Inviting the other poster to fill in the blanks in a sentence.../hosting
[/Aside]
quote:Given Brexit, we'll pass, thanks!
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
It could still end well.
quote:While there are certainly some real jerks in the pro-Trump ranks, you are completely missing the pain felt by many people who have been fucked over for decades.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Just as there is a rump of Englishmen who want to restore the Land of Hope and Glory, so there is a rump, a very large rump (but not large enough if the polls are right), of Americans who want to have their perceived needs catered for before any other American. They want women in their place, blacks in their place, and Hispanics and Asians out.
There ought be no compromise with these people. Their concerns are not legitimate. They should be disarmed as soon as possible. But they are not breeding very fast, so time and tide should take care of them, even if Trump wins this year.
quote:538's analysis of pollsters and latest list of National Polls suggests that it is an outlier. The pollster's results invariably lean towards the GOP. 538 takes account of such factors, based on previous performance and poll methodology. RCP doesn't.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
The latest poll on Real Clear Politics shows Mr Trump ahead by 2. I wonder if this is an outlier, or a sign of things to come?
quote:True. I hope not. I hope that the psephological reality is as WYSIWYG as Croesos and Baranabas62 describe.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Ur assuming people are still listening.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Politically romanlion is winning here hands down.
Because Clinton is losing hands down.
...
quote:That cuts both ways, though. I'm sure there will be right wingers who will stealthily vote blue.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Thing is, all through this trump episode it has been said many Americans have been closeted in their support of him. This being said, there is every reason believe people have not been truthful with pollsters and that this race is by no means foregone conclusion.
quote:It remains to be seen how many Republican women will, in the privacy of the voting booth, vote for Clinton, but
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:That cuts both ways, though. I'm sure there will be right wingers who will stealthily vote blue.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Thing is, all through this trump episode it has been said many Americans have been closeted in their support of him. This being said, there is every reason believe people have not been truthful with pollsters and that this race is by no means foregone conclusion.
quote:Absolutely rolyn. Although the 538 analyses takes all of this in to account, we are in unprecedented times.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Thing is, all through this trump episode it has been said many Americans have been closeted in their support of him. This being said, there is every reason believe people have not been truthful with pollsters and that this race is by no means foregone conclusion.
quote:welcome to the party, Tony!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There was an interview (on BBC Radio 4 onFriday last week) with Tony Schwarz which gave a very worrying picture of Trump.
quote:The LA Times poll, which I'm guessing is the one you're referring to, has been a consistent outlier in this year's polling, usually in Trump's favor. Their methodology is a bit different than most polls and some of the potential problems with it are highlighted in this New York Times article. (Only click through if you're a Times subscriber or are willing to use one of your ten monthly NYT clicks on this article.) We'll find out election night if the LA Times wrong or if everyone else is.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
The latest poll on Real Clear Politics shows Mr Trump ahead by 2. I wonder if this is an outlier, or a sign of things to come?
quote:Most of Trump's supporters are anything but shy about their support of him. On the other hand it's just as plausible that there are a significant number of women who will vote Clinton and don't want to say so in front of their Trump-supporting husbands/boyfriends. I guess that's another thing we'll find out the evening of November 8.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Thing is, all through this trump episode it has been said many Americans have been closeted in their support of him. This being said, there is every reason believe people have not been truthful with pollsters and that this race is by no means foregone conclusion.
quote:I went to bed, slept well and woke up to a shock.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, I will not panic, I will not panic ...
I just remember Brexit night. We did panic. We still do.
quote:Just an example. Today's polls show the truth of this remark from my post.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And it's not 1:10 Barnabas62, it's 1:7 > 1:6
quote:The probability of Clinton winning is down to 77%, the lead in the popular vote is down to 4.5%. At this early stage, from the most recent polls, at looks as though the Comey effect has reduced the deficit on the popular vote by about 1%. Florida, Nevada and N Carolina are looking very knife edged (about 1% lead for Clinton on the popular vote).
What the psephologists are saying is "shorter than that, probably getting shorter".
quote:Well, 538 says 77%. The NYT still says 91% and Sam Wang says 97%. Only two polls include data from after the Comey letter, and none were taken exclusively during that period. So whatever fluctuation we're seeing in the polling predictors is not due to Comey.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The probability of Clinton winning is down to 77%, the lead in the popular vote is down to 4.5%. At this early stage, from the most recent polls, at looks as though the Comey effect has reduced the deficit on the popular vote by about 1%. Florida, Nevada and N Carolina are looking very knife edged (about 1% lead for Clinton on the popular vote).
quote:Poling day is 8th November (unless you believe Trump, in which case it's the 28th).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
quote:That's what we thought 16 years ago.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Poling day is 8th November (unless you believe Trump, in which case it's the 28th).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
So early doors on the 9th you'd think.
quote:The white lower working class of America cannot compete with China or Mexico or India or anywhere. Wealth taxation and unionization are the answer, not protectionism.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't think your problem in globalisation when it comes to economics. It is an unequal taxation system where some people and companies avoid taxation entirely. High income tax brackets thresholds are set far too high. And spend far less on military in support of corporations and in general.
quote:Fair enough. I misread a Nate Silver Twitter. Nothing is really clear yet about the Comey effect. So far as other polls are concerned, I'm deferring to 538 at present because I think the methodology is better than other aggregate posters.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well, 538 says 77%. The NYT still says 91% and Sam Wang says 97%. Only two polls include data from after the Comey letter, and none were taken exclusively during that period. So whatever fluctuation we're seeing in the polling predictors is not due to Comey.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The probability of Clinton winning is down to 77%, the lead in the popular vote is down to 4.5%. At this early stage, from the most recent polls, at looks as though the Comey effect has reduced the deficit on the popular vote by about 1%. Florida, Nevada and N Carolina are looking very knife edged (about 1% lead for Clinton on the popular vote).
quote:If that were true, New York would be paradise...
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Wealth taxation and unionization are the answer
quote:It depends. With Bush v Gore, we didn't know for weeks (and even then...). With McCain v Obama we knew the minute the polls closed on the West coast. Just depends on how close it is.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
quote:I went to bed and slept well having just heard Nigel Farage all but concede defeat. Waking up it was hard to believe my ears.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I went to bed, slept well and woke up to a shock.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, I will not panic, I will not panic ...
I just remember Brexit night. We did panic. We still do.
quote:Election officials will start tabulating votes and reporting results as soon as the polls close in each state. It's possible we'll know the result fairly early, depending on a number of factors. Trump's plausible paths to victory are fairly narrow, so it's possible we could know fairly early depending on a number of factors.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It depends. With Bush v Gore, we didn't know for weeks (and even then...). With McCain v Obama we knew the minute the polls closed on the West coast. Just depends on how close it is.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
quote:I doubt anybody is going to sleep well Nov. 8. I doubt anyone will sleep at all.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I went to bed and slept well having just heard Nigel Farage all but concede defeat. Waking up it was hard to believe my ears.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I went to bed, slept well and woke up to a shock.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, I will not panic, I will not panic ...
I just remember Brexit night. We did panic. We still do.
quote:So protectionism IS the answer!
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:If that were true, New York would be paradise...
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Wealth taxation and unionization are the answer
quote:You mean like this?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Martin--
RuthW, exactly, a Clinton win isn't the Kingdom come for at least the bottom half of the working class. She hasn't got the balls to empower them by taxing wealth.
quote:~No.~
Trump would and should win hands down if he guaranteed achieving social justice without any scapegoats.
quote:What Ruth said.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:While there are certainly some real jerks in the pro-Trump ranks, you are completely missing the pain felt by many people who have been fucked over for decades.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Just as there is a rump of Englishmen who want to restore the Land of Hope and Glory, so there is a rump, a very large rump (but not large enough if the polls are right), of Americans who want to have their perceived needs catered for before any other American. They want women in their place, blacks in their place, and Hispanics and Asians out.
There ought be no compromise with these people. Their concerns are not legitimate. They should be disarmed as soon as possible. But they are not breeding very fast, so time and tide should take care of them, even if Trump wins this year.
quote:I suspect it's going to be a long, drawn-out affair, even after the inauguration. Apt to be like Bush v. Gore, or much worse.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It depends. With Bush v Gore, we didn't know for weeks (and even then...). With McCain v Obama we knew the minute the polls closed on the West coast. Just depends on how close it is.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
quote:She can win them all.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If Hillary wins 300+ electoral votes, then the whole rigged election rant spouted by Trump will be hopefully put to rest.
If however, Hillary wins by 270 to 300 votes, expect the trouble will not be over.
Hillary needs to win comfortably well.
quote:I suspect it's going to be a long, drawn-out affair, even after the inauguration. Apt to be like Bush v. Gore, or much worse.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:It depends. With Bush v Gore, we didn't know for weeks (and even then...). With McCain v Obama we knew the minute the polls closed on the West coast. Just depends on how close it is.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I know it will take ages before the winner actually becomes President, but when will we know the result?
You're right. They should have gone one way or the other. However, Hillary has been known by her first name for a long time, to distinguish her from her husband. So it's possible that the person you heard made an unconscious mistake.
quote:I'd like to see Ruth's point explained a bit more. I can make a stab at the type of people she means, but I'd prefer to respond to a more considered rebuttal than guess at what's being put.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
quote:What Ruth said.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:While there are certainly some real jerks in the pro-Trump ranks, you are completely missing the pain felt by many people who have been fucked over for decades.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Just as there is a rump of Englishmen who want to restore the Land of Hope and Glory, so there is a rump, a very large rump (but not large enough if the polls are right), of Americans who want to have their perceived needs catered for before any other American. They want women in their place, blacks in their place, and Hispanics and Asians out.
There ought be no compromise with these people. Their concerns are not legitimate. They should be disarmed as soon as possible. But they are not breeding very fast, so time and tide should take care of them, even if Trump wins this year.
Gee, thanks, simontoad, for condemning a whole swathe of people in another country, and hoping they literally, biologically go extinct--especially without understanding the context.
quote:
But they are not breeding very fast, so time and tide should take care of them, even if Trump wins this year.
quote:A continuation of Obama's policies that the Trump base don't experience, a minimum wage of $7.25 doesn't help. And despite him being the most pro-labor president since Truman, the Trump base again obviously perceives nothing.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:You mean like this?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Martin--
RuthW, exactly, a Clinton win isn't the Kingdom come for at least the bottom half of the working class. She hasn't got the balls to empower them by taxing wealth.
"A fair tax system: Making sure the wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations pay their fair share in taxes. " (HC's official website) That also talks about tax relief, and using the money from taxes on the wealthy to invest in jobs, "debt-free college", etc.
quote:I'm glad someone had them to take me up on it!
Oh, and that would be "ovaries", not balls. And why don't we just skip the idea that a person's hormones and plumbing have anything to do with competence? Possible alternatives: "courage", "nerve", "daring","guts", "audacity".
quote:(a)-(c) of course
quote:~No.~
Trump would and should win hands down if he guaranteed achieving social justice without any scapegoats.
a) No one can legitimately guarantee that.
b) AFAICT, he doesn't care at all about social justice.
c) America's attempts at social justice have a bumpy, cyclical history. There's a start, then someone tears it down, then someone tries again...Kind of like sufficient funding for public/state schools.
d) Kindly don't call down that nightmare of a presidency on my country.
quote:It's not really irrelevant, IMHO; but it's not primary, either. Anymore than Americans' views of your country should be primary for you.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Admittedly, I'm far away and a foreigner. So far as November 8th is concerned my view is irrelevant, even though most of us in the rest of the world are terrified.
quote:That is one powerful piece of writing Enoch.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Romanlion, I suspect you won't agree with it, but have you read
this? It persuades me.
Admittedly, I'm far away and a foreigner. So far as November 8th is concerned my view is irrelevant, even though most of us in the rest of the world are terrified.
quote:Yes? The conclusion you have drawn isn't open from this, especially not literally.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
You said, in the post I quoted:
quote:
But they are not breeding very fast, so time and tide should take care of them, even if Trump wins this year.
quote:I was thinking the same - and I feel for you
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And we're very scared, too. Whatever happens, we'll have to live with it, up close and personally.
quote:I think a lot of the critique of HC is down to misogyny, but I don't think that is all there is too it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The article which Enoch linked says it all, really. I hope the US electorate get the point, in sufficient numbers.
quote:I did address that point in the later paras of my post, chris, but on reflection "says it all" wasn't right. I should have written "says a lot".
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think a lot of the critique of HC is down to misogyny, but I don't think that is all there is too it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The article which Enoch linked says it all, really. I hope the US electorate get the point, in sufficient numbers.
I think there has been a trend for politicians to get ever closer to business, and at this particular point there is a popular backlash against that trend.
quote:Hillary thinks it's her turn to be President. She's served her time in all the right places, schmoozed all the right people, and even kept playing the game when she unaccountably lost to Barack Obama. It's her turn now. You don't really see that when she talks about Trump, because his candidacy is completely crazy, but you saw it a bit in the primaries.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But Hillary? I see no entitlement there; confidence, experience, social awareness, maybe. It just baffles me.
quote:It's kind of impossible to run for President of the United States without making the case that it's your turn to be president, but it's only seen as entitlement when a woman does it. (To be fair, there were some rumbles of this when Obama was the Democratic nominee in 2008, mostly from people who were trying desperately to think of non-obvious synonyms for 'uppity'.) This seems to be borne out by the fact that Hillary Clinton typically has high public approval ratings which always seem to go way down when she's seeking a new position.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Hillary thinks it's her turn to be President. She's served her time in all the right places, schmoozed all the right people, and even kept playing the game when she unaccountably lost to Barack Obama. It's her turn now. You don't really see that when she talks about Trump, because his candidacy is completely crazy, but you saw it a bit in the primaries.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But Hillary? I see no entitlement there; confidence, experience, social awareness, maybe. It just baffles me.
That's the entitlement she has - not the kind of silver spoon birthright.
quote:That analysis seems on-point.
Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.
We beg Clinton to run, and then accuse her of feeling “entitled” to win.
quote:No, but it seems like it's only considered "entitlement" when it's a woman seeking office. In men it's usually described as "ambition" or "drive".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She's also bright, experienced, talented, and qualified, and is by no means unique among politicians for feeling this kind of entitlement.
quote:I think it is sexism, although it may be unconscious sexism. The fact that it is common practice only goes to the ubiquity of the problem.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Susan--
Thanks for your protest call!
Or they could be a Hillary-loathing sexist!
quote:Thanks. The whole Quartz article I linked to is worth a read. It was written back in February, at a point when only three states had cast their primary votes. It seems to hold up pretty well.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
interesting analysis Crœsos -- seems spot on.
quote:Just because they walked across the Siberian land bridge doesn't mean they aren't still immigrants like the rest of us. Just longer ago.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
...
Isn't the USA supposed to be a land founded by immigrants - unless you count the Native Indians, who always seem to be ignored anyway?
quote:Most of the recent movement in polling has come from Trump gains. Clinton has held pretty steady in her numbers. This is, to a certain degree, expected. Trump was very off-putting for a good number of traditional Republican voters, but as election day gets closer more of them will return to the GOP. According to Real Clear Politics this seems to be a result of voters abandoning Gary Johnson, not Hillary Clinton. We'll see if there are enough reluctant Republicans to tip the balance.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Don't you guys think that there will be a rebound? I mean, that if Trump's vote is increasing, whether or not that is to do with the email stuff, this could bring out hesitant Clinton voters, who may stiffen their resolve. Just the sheer horror of a Trump presidency.
quote:And Trump doesn't? That's one of the strangest things for me - the accusations against Hillary seem far more appropriate to be levelled at Trump.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Lest anyone think we on the left hand side of the pond are free from this sort of thinking, a very well know television interviewer remarked that Hillary "oozes entitlement"
quote:You can file me under "is it cos she is a woman?" as well. Anyone who thinks that they can do the whole Leader Of The Free World bit, has got to be a little bit mad. Obama is probably the best incumbent of the gig during my lifetime and there are plenty of valid criticisms that could be levelled against him. 7/10 would be my view and from Nixon to Shrub that is pretty much better than anyone else managed. If asked if one could do as well, or better, the obvious answer is: "I don't think so". This was enough to get Prince Caspian the gig in Narnia but as appointment by a talking Lion is not, alas and alackaday!, generally considered a valid form of constitutional government, we have to settle for a number of more or less delusional persons trying to persuade the electorate that their more or less intractable problems are, somehow, soluble. Mrs Clinton clearly falls into the less delusional category on the grounds of two terms as a New York Senator and a term of Secretary of State in which she did pretty well. Her opponent, on the other hand, served his apprenticeship on, well, The Apprentice. So Clinton is running on: "Hey, I've done these things that demonstrate that I might have the relevant skill set for the job" whilst her opponent is running on: "behold, I am rich and famous". And she is the one with the sense of entitlement. To which the only adequate answer is something along the lines of: "Do fuck off you misogynist twat".
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:And Trump doesn't? That's one of the strangest things for me - the accusations against Hillary seem far more appropriate to be levelled at Trump.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Lest anyone think we on the left hand side of the pond are free from this sort of thinking, a very well know television interviewer remarked that Hillary "oozes entitlement"
quote:According to most polling, very few people are deserting Clinton for Trump. His numbers have risen, but hers haven't really dropped.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what kind of people are deserting Clinton for Trump over the email non-events?
quote:I'm on my phone at the laundromat, so it's hard to type a considered response, but there was a great article in the LA Times about Rust Belt Trump voters. Springsteen knew these folks were in trouble decades ago.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd like to see Ruth's point explained a bit more. I can make a stab at the type of people she means, but I'd prefer to respond to a more considered rebuttal than guess at what's being put.
quote:The report is garbled enough that you have to read through the lines to guess part of what is being implied, without necessarily having any confidence that the interpretation thus gleaned is that accurate. So pretty much par for the course for any media reporting on technical/scientific matters.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Slate has an intruguing story offering evidence of a hidden server connection between Trump Tower and a Russian bank over which traffic mirrored US political activity.
quote:Just hope he doesn't grab her ... corgi.
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
A while ago there was a petition in the UK to ban Trump from coming here, which I signed. Because so many signed, it had to be debated in the House of Commons. It was decided that he should not be banned from UK. However, if he is elected POTUS (which I am afraid is looking more likely) what sort of reception will he get on his first Presidential visit? Her Maj will have to put him up at the Palace. Eek.
quote:The thing that's missing from this kind of analysis is that the non-white poor are experiencing the exact same economic conditions, and yet their support for Donald Trump is negligible. If Trump's support was driven by economic factors we wouldn't expect to see such a huge racial divide.
Originally posted by Martin60:
RuthW, Barnabas62. Yep. Trump refuses to adapt to globalization apart from negatively and Clinton can't positively. Strong hostile - negative trumps weak benevolent - positive for the white poor up in to the squeezed middle.
quote:Disagreed. It's just that non-white poor know that when people who are used to privilege don't get it, they want someone to blame. People know the squeezed white poor are going to angrily lash out at People of Color.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The thing that's missing from this kind of analysis is that the non-white poor are experiencing the exact same economic conditions, and yet their support for Donald Trump is negligible. If Trump's support was driven by economic factors we wouldn't expect to see such a huge racial divide.
Originally posted by Martin60:
RuthW, Barnabas62. Yep. Trump refuses to adapt to globalization apart from negatively and Clinton can't positively. Strong hostile - negative trumps weak benevolent - positive for the white poor up in to the squeezed middle.
quote:What Gwai said above, plus if nationalism is the rallying call then it's easier to fuel a movement with ethnic nationalism than civic nationalism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The thing that's missing from this kind of analysis is that the non-white poor are experiencing the exact same economic conditions, and yet their support for Donald Trump is negligible. If Trump's support was driven by economic factors we wouldn't expect to see such a huge racial divide.
quote:What on earth are you talking about?
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The major tracking polls show that there has been no change in the overall percentages for Clinton or Trump.
quote:The poor are divided on majority vs minority ethnic lines, minorities always need the protection of the state and return the favour in spades (Christians in Syria and Iraq).
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Disagreed. It's just that non-white poor know that when people who are used to privilege don't get it, they want someone to blame. People know the squeezed white poor are going to angrily lash out at People of Color.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The thing that's missing from this kind of analysis is that the non-white poor are experiencing the exact same economic conditions, and yet their support for Donald Trump is negligible. If Trump's support was driven by economic factors we wouldn't expect to see such a huge racial divide.
Originally posted by Martin60:
RuthW, Barnabas62. Yep. Trump refuses to adapt to globalization apart from negatively and Clinton can't positively. Strong hostile - negative trumps weak benevolent - positive for the white poor up in to the squeezed middle.
quote:I'm not convinced that they are experiencing the exact same economic conditions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The thing that's missing from this kind of analysis is that the non-white poor are experiencing the exact same economic conditions, and yet their support for Donald Trump is negligible. If Trump's support was driven by economic factors we wouldn't expect to see such a huge racial divide.
quote:Nice of you to drop back in again. Again.
Originally posted by romanlion:
All this hand-wringing in the hopes of electing a proven liar, elitist hag under FBI investigation.
quote:
Do you have any cogent arguments as to why it would be preferable to see Trump in office as opposed to Clinton?
quote:I've never made any such assertion.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Nice of you to drop back in again. Again.
Originally posted by romanlion:
All this hand-wringing in the hopes of electing a proven liar, elitist hag under FBI investigation.
Do you by any chance have an answer to my question way back on page 111 (and repeated on page 129...) yet?quote:
Do you have any cogent arguments as to why it would be preferable to see Trump in office as opposed to Clinton?
quote:
the Dwarfs jeered back at Eustace. “That was a surprise for you, little boy, eh? Thought we were on your side, did you? No fear. We don’t want any Talking Horses. We don’t want you to win any more than the other gang. You can’t take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs.”
quote:Maybe you're right? Maybe US citizens will decide that in a race between a louse and a double-louse, Hillary Clinton is really the double-louse?
Originally posted by romanlion:
All this hand-wringing ....
quote:Caveat: The "election now" model is the one that Nate Silver and Harry Entin at 538 say is the least reliable/best to ignore. Not saying that model may not be a signal of things to come after all, but the 538 folks caution about putting much stock in it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PS - On the 538 "election now" option, Florida has just flipped to Trump.
quote:Ah, it does indeed, though barely so for polls-only.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All three options (polls plus, polls only, election now) show the flip. There has been a trend that way.
quote:Not on the sidelines, I've voted already and I'm not one of those inquiring about the possibility of changing my ballot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you prefer to sit on the sidelines throwing things?
quote:No, someone doesn't. It is obviously your opinion that there is no justification whatsoever for voting for Hillary, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The fact that there is no justification whatsoever for voting Hillary does not automatically mean that a Trump vote is justified, but just the same...
Somebody's gotta say it...
quote:And now, just a few hours later, polls-only is back to blue, though only by a hair.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Ah, it does indeed, though barely so for polls-only.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All three options (polls plus, polls only, election now) show the flip. There has been a trend that way.
quote:Quite so.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Certainly more potential entertainment value in Trump, that's about it...
quote:The capability for Trump to do diplomatic damage and/or further inflame social divides that could quite conceivably affect you looks like a very real possibility to me.
Originally posted by romanlion:
There is not a thin dime's worth of difference between the two in practical terms. My life will not change.
quote:Not to mention nuclear war.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:The capability for Trump to do diplomatic damage and/or further inflame social divides that could quite conceivably affect you looks like a very real possibility to me.
Originally posted by romanlion:
There is not a thin dime's worth of difference between the two in practical terms. My life will not change.
quote:You've probably noticed that North Carolina has joined the flip-flop, too.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:And now, just a few hours later, polls-only is back to blue, though only by a hair.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Ah, it does indeed, though barely so for polls-only.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All three options (polls plus, polls only, election now) show the flip. There has been a trend that way.
quote:Good question. As series of unrelated tweets suddenly appear on the FBI's long dormant FOIA twitter feed. Subjects include the Clinton Foundation, the FBI's fitness standards, Nicola Tesla, and Fred Trump. All the tweets were released at exactly 1:00 am on October 30, except the one about the Clinton Foundation which was released 9:00 am on November 1.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is going on?
This just feeds the Trump narrative.
quote:North Carolina is still for Clinton according to the BBC.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:You've probably noticed that North Carolina has joined the flip-flop, too.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:And now, just a few hours later, polls-only is back to blue, though only by a hair.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Ah, it does indeed, though barely so for polls-only.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All three options (polls plus, polls only, election now) show the flip. There has been a trend that way.
It's been a bad couple of days for Hillary Clinton, polls-wise. She needs to stop the rot, turn the tide in the battleground states. That might be easier said than done at this late stage.
quote:There is justification for voting Clinton; she's not Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The fact that there is no justification whatsoever for voting Hillary...
quote:Well, as long as we are voting based on what a candidate is not...
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:There is justification for voting Clinton; she's not Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The fact that there is no justification whatsoever for voting Hillary...
quote:So she is worse than Trump...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Other than charismatic* those are all things Trump is not.
*YMMV on that.
quote:How much are your premiums going up?
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think the factor that is starting to weigh down the Clinton election is not so much the emails as the projected premium increases in the Affordable Health Care insurance. When people's pocketbooks are affected, they react strongly.
quote:First, charisma is not the positive attribute it is presented as.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So she is worse than Trump...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Other than charismatic* those are all things Trump is not.
*YMMV on that.
You said it, not me...
quote:True. He is a despicable character with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. At least she has some.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
His mendaciousness is to hers as a whale shark is to a guppy. Much the same for the other characteristics.
quote:How does one differentiate between projection and objective reality? What's actually happening at the party before one brings anything to it?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Well, as long as we are voting based on what a candidate is not...
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:There is justification for voting Clinton; she's not Trump.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The fact that there is no justification whatsoever for voting Hillary...
She is not honest
She is not sincere
She is not charismatic
She is not humble
She is not kind
She is not generous
She is not likable
She is not respectable
She is not inspirational
So run out and vote for what she's not...if that's all you've got.
quote:Remove "charismatic", change your "she"s to "he"s (and add at least a dozen other negative characteristics to the list) and you've written the beginnings of a pen portrait of Trump, but only the beginnings.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well, as long as we are voting based on what a candidate is not...
She is not honest
She is not sincere
She is not charismatic
She is not humble
She is not kind
She is not generous
She is not likable
She is not respectable
She is not inspirational
So run out and vote for what she's not...if that's all you've got.
quote:Back before Barry repeatedly said that premiums would go down by $2500 per year?
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need to go back to before Obamacare, when premiums NEVER went up. Ever. Not once.
quote:Why not lay the blame where it belongs: on Congress, who vowed to oppose anything proposed by President Obama regardless of the merits and regardless of whether individual members had previously advocated same; and on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, whose money Congress is only all too willing to take to support the selfish aims of those industries?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Back before Barry repeatedly said that premiums would go down by $2500 per year?
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need to go back to before Obamacare, when premiums NEVER went up. Ever. Not once.
I concur. We should...
quote:Oh, that's not the reason people hate him.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Yes, President Obama has an unfortunate habit of putting his foot in his mouth, but that is no reason to hate him to the point of calling him by a diminutive.
quote:Exactly. Insurers are raising premiums this year for the exact same reason they have done so each and every year: because they can.
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need to go back to before Obamacare, when premiums NEVER went up. Ever. Not once.
quote:But Obamacare did change the amount that would be passed along to policyholders:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Exactly. Insurers are raising premiums this year for the exact same reason they have done so each and every year: because they can.
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need to go back to before Obamacare, when premiums NEVER went up. Ever. Not once.
Obamacare did not change that, but it didn't cause it either.
quote:In other words, Obamacare was designed to take rising premiums into account and cover those at the lower end of the income spectrum with higher subsidies. Ignoring or eliding this is about as dishonest as claiming that a $2,500 price reduction relative to the current trajectory is the actually a promise of a $2,500 price reduction relative to the current cost.
Yep, Qualified Health Plans in the individual market are seeing roughly a 25% price hike year over year. For people who are buying on Exchange, the vast majority of that price hike will be hidden if they are being subsidized and if they are willing to switch plans. For people who are buying off-Exchange or don’t qualify for subsidies, they are screwed.
quote:There are pretty obvious policy differences between the parties, and those differences touch on personal issues. So that's part of it- the major spokesperson for the group that wants to take personal issues in a different direction than you would prefer is not going to be your favorite person in the world. This is not to deny that race has colored how people express their disagreement with Obama. It's just to point out that there actually are people who didn't agree with what he wanted to get done, even though you may not run into too many of them in your personal social circles.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Why do people hate him? Are the (m)any objective reasons for this, in your observation?
quote:That would explain the opposition. It does not explain the raw, visceral, irrational hatred. "Policy differences" does not explain the racist memes, the endless irrational conspiracy theories, or the very real death threats.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:There are pretty obvious policy differences between the parties, and those differences touch on personal issues. So that's part of it- the major spokesperson for the group that wants to take personal issues in a different direction than you would prefer is not going to be your favorite person in the world. This is not to deny that race has colored how people express their disagreement with Obama. It's just to point out that there actually are people who didn't agree with what he wanted to get done, even though you may not run into too many of them in your personal social circles.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Why do people hate him? Are the (m)any objective reasons for this, in your observation?
quote:You are doing the same thing Trump does, projecting his faults onto his opponent.
Well, as long as we are voting based on what a candidate is not...
She is not honest
She is not sincere
She is not charismatic
She is not humble
She is not kind
She is not generous
She is not likable
She is not respectable
She is not inspirational
So run out and vote for what she's not...if that's all you've got.
quote:Obviously "policy differences" at work. [Possible video auto-play at link.]
A local [Greenville, MS] black church, Hopewell M.B. Church, was not only burned but also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump" spray painted on the side of the building. Mayor Errick D. Simmons, Greenville Fire Chief, Washington County Sheriff and other local state and federal law enforcement agencies are holding a press conference Wednesday sometime between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
quote:Where to start?
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Why do people hate him? Are the (m)any objective reasons for this, in your observation?
(Although this thread is of course more about the 2016 election than about the incumbent.)
quote:Go back and look at where I said that I was not denying that race colored how some folks expressed their disagreement with Obama.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That would explain the opposition. It does not explain the raw, visceral, irrational hatred. "Policy differences" does not explain the racist memes, the endless irrational conspiracy theories, or the very real death threats.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:There are pretty obvious policy differences between the parties, and those differences touch on personal issues. So that's part of it- the major spokesperson for the group that wants to take personal issues in a different direction than you would prefer is not going to be your favorite person in the world. This is not to deny that race has colored how people express their disagreement with Obama. It's just to point out that there actually are people who didn't agree with what he wanted to get done, even though you may not run into too many of them in your personal social circles.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Why do people hate him? Are the (m)any objective reasons for this, in your observation?
quote:I'm assuming you're talking about the church burning. If so, I'd suggest that it is civil disorder, rather than something that might "provoke" civil disorder.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose it may mobilise/motivate African American voters, which is a Clinton need. But tbh I'm more bothered about whether it will provoke civil disorder. That would be pretty much the last straw in this hate-filled and polarised election.
quote:I think it's time to stock the pantry, and get a passport...
As the most divisive presidential election in recent memory nears its conclusion, some armed militia groups are preparing for the possibility of a stolen election on Nov. 8 and civil unrest in the days following a victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton.
They say they won’t fire the first shot, but they’re not planning to leave their guns at home, either.
quote:Don't blame you at all.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm a bit stressed about the whole thing at the moment, and am going to take a step back.
quote:But Og's question was not about opposition but hatred. And no, I don't think the level of hatred directed at Obama is the "normal" or "ordinary" sort of hatred directed at Presidents of the opposite party. I don't know that we're too far apart in what we're saying although there appears to be a difference in perspective. But Og's question seems to be directed to the group you and I both agree is racist and filled with irrational hatred, as opposed to the normal sorts of distaste one usually feels for a president whose policies you don't favor or whose party you don't align with.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Go back and look at where I said that I was not denying that race colored how some folks expressed their disagreement with Obama.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That would explain the opposition. It does not explain the raw, visceral, irrational hatred. "Policy differences" does not explain the racist memes, the endless irrational conspiracy theories, or the very real death threats.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:There are pretty obvious policy differences between the parties, and those differences touch on personal issues. So that's part of it- the major spokesperson for the group that wants to take personal issues in a different direction than you would prefer is not going to be your favorite person in the world. This is not to deny that race has colored how people express their disagreement with Obama. It's just to point out that there actually are people who didn't agree with what he wanted to get done, even though you may not run into too many of them in your personal social circles.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Why do people hate him? Are the (m)any objective reasons for this, in your observation?
People have always hated the President when he was in the opposite party. Definitely not in the way that many folks hate Obama, but let's not pretend that politics don't get personal.
quote:Brief personal note. I've got a bit of shore leave coming up so won't be around much, if at all, til Monday. Take care, all interested parties in this thread. The 'nervous wrecking' potential of this thread is a sign of Tuesday's importance and implications.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Don't blame you at all.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm a bit stressed about the whole thing at the moment, and am going to take a step back.
quote:I know exactly what you mean. I am off on holiday next week and hope when we get back that the dust has settled - in some shape or form!
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm a bit stressed about the whole thing at the moment, and am going to take a step back.
quote:How does one prepare for that?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I do think, however, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the lunatics are going to take over the asylum.
quote:You must mean the lunatics who would willfully and belligerently vote for a woman who is the subject of two separate FBI investigations? A proven liar, who profited from her political positions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I do think, however, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the lunatics are going to take over the asylum.
quote:Here is an interesting analysis of the potential global impact. It contains the following pithy quote.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I do think, however, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the lunatics are going to take over the asylum.
quote:Which I guess is one of the reasons why this thread has gathered so much interest from folks outside the US. The New Statesman article identifies the catastrophic risks to relationships with allies, the world economy and global security. And those risks are related directly to things Donald Trump has said, repeatedly, throughout the campaign.
As for the idea that a Trump presidency would be a disaster, that is completely wide of the mark. It is actually much worse than most people think. President Trump has the potential to be an unmitigated catastrophe – if not for the United States, then certainly for the rest of the world.
quote:Why would you say that? Romanlion has nothing but praise for Donald Trump. I mean that in the most literal sense; romanlion has never made any kind of critical comment about Trump and has praised his virtues on occasion. Such as his claim that Donald Trump is admirable and virtuous because he's dedicated to increasing his own material wealth.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We can hope you can do better than a stuck record, certainly.
Clearly you dislike both front-running candidates, Clinton more than Trump, and think the system simply has itself to blame for bringing things to such a pass.
quote:You know, fortunately I'm not American and don't have to make a decision, but I think if it came to a choice between Sauron and Trump. I'd just about be able to force myself to pick Trump. Otherwise, no. You don't have to be a saint to be the lesser of two evils when the other one's Trump. The man's what you get if you distil hatred of "the other" and form it into humanoid form and grant it the curse of Narcissism. Very nasty, very dangerous.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:You must mean the lunatics who would willfully and belligerently vote for a woman who is the subject of two separate FBI investigations? A proven liar, who profited from her political positions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I do think, however, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the lunatics are going to take over the asylum.
All we can do is hope not...
quote:I said it because your assertion isn't actually true.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would you say that? Romanlion has nothing but praise for Donald Trump.
quote:(1 November)
There is not a thin dime's worth of difference between the two in practical terms (...) Certainly more potential entertainment value in Trump, that's about it...
quote:(10 October)
To be fair, Trump is no prize either..
quote:(13 September)
Hillary is every bit the arrogant, self-serving, elitist piece of shit that Trump is, only without the odd knack for mass appeal he has.
quote:That's pretty much what you get from both RCP and 538. But the polling patterns are all over the place. In the last few days from Florida, for example, you've had polls showing everything from Trump +4% to Clinton+4%. Looking at the three most recent polls, Clinton is leading, by 1, 2, and 3%. (These are raw scores, 538 adjusts for past performance as signs of reliability and/or built in bias). Is Clinton fighting back in Florida, or is this just statistical variation? Who knows - yet.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Trump's path to victory requires him to win all the Trump-leaning states, all of the toss-ups, and then pick up either New Hampshire or Colorado.
quote:IMO, there are Trump voters who are too embarrassed to admit it. He is so obviously an unqualified choice, many cannot honestly answer without ridicule.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Nate Silver has some concerns about how appropriate his model is this time round, for a variety of reasons. The quality and frequency of states polls information is poorer than in 2012).
quote:In my part of LA I see lots of "I'm with her" signs. I have to go south to Orange Co to see Trump/Pence signs. It seems very regional.
Originally posted by nickel:
Am I the only one to think that because the media keeps saying 'No one likes Hillary', there are people not wanting to advertise they are voting for her? I've seen quite a few pro-republican yard signs that are using four year old "Romney/Ryan" signs in place of "Trump/Pence," but haven't seen any "Obama/ Biden" signs in democrat's yards (in my part of Virginia, at least).
I remain hopeful.
quote:Ya think they were... grabbed?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[...] Of course, it's possible that they had Trump signs that were immediately stolen.
quote:Around here they are.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Ya think they were... grabbed?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[...] Of course, it's possible that they had Trump signs that were immediately stolen.
quote:
Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter will hold a series of events in Albany [Georgia] Friday, to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Georgia Democrats.
Carter will begin the day with a luncheon at the Albany Welcome Center at 11:30.
Then she will visit Albany State University to speak with student leaders at 1:30.
The First Lady will conclude the day’s events with a go vote phone bank at Carter’s Grill and Restaurant, at 3:30.
quote:Pigwidgeon lives in the East Valley; I'm in the West Valley. Out this way we've seen surprisingly few, if any, signs for either Clinton or Trump. There are scores of signs for just about every other candidate for anything as well as for the various ballot propositions.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Do any of the vandalised signs depict...cats?
quote:There followed some entomological snark.
Sam Wang
@SamWangPhD
It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.
quote:I've actually seen very few Presidential Election signs out this way either -- plenty for Sheriff, Senate, etc.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Pigwidgeon lives in the East Valley; I'm in the West Valley. Out this way we've seen surprisingly few, if any, signs for either Clinton or Trump. There are scores of signs for just about every other candidate for anything as well as for the various ballot propositions.
I'm all voted, and I'm with her!!! quote:Well done, GK, and many thanks.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[...] I'm all voted, and I'm with her!!! [...]
quote:Donald Trump chastised the President for remonstrating with the crowd on behalf of Trump supporter. it just fitted better with his agenda than telling the truth would. That's a current "reality". As was Fox TV getting suckered. Low blows reaching for the high ground, without shame.
As any number of dystopian fictions from Rollerball to The Hunger Games have long warned us, the future is a televised contest played for the highest stakes. So we must have known the current shitshow was in the post. Either way, it turns out all those who used to tut, “How low can reality TV go?” were totally asking the wrong question. Look how high it’s gone!
quote:I think Obama may be our classiest president ever. I miss him already.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Obama Shouts Over Crowd To Defend Trump Supporter At Rally." (HuffPost)
quote:My best friend's cat disappeared three days ago. I think Trump grabbed her.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Do any of the vandalised signs depict...cats?
I'll get me coat....
IJ
quote:Just discovered this was pre-Comey. He says he'll live with the quote. B62 forecast and pledge. If Sam Wang doesn't have to eat a bug, I will re-read Calvin's 'Institutes'. Compared to which, eating one fried locust is child's play.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's putting your money where your mouth is, and then there's putting your mouth where your polling predictions are:
quote:There followed some entomological snark.
Sam Wang
@SamWangPhD
It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.
quote:Thanks NYT and thank you Ruth for bringing it to our attention.
Originally posted by RuthW:
For those of us who hoard our 10 monthly clicks: the NY Times online will be free November 7-9 (from 12:01 a.m. ET on Monday, November 7 until 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday, November 9).
quote:Lewes had four, I think. There are three here:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
More light relief - an effigy of The Donald (holding Hillary's head!) is due to be burnt today as part of the Bonfire Night celebrations at a small town in this county:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37852354
I doubt if it'll be the only one!
IJ
quote:This was Trump's reaction to the Obama story. Would he know truth if it came up and bit him?
Originally posted by Twilight:
Two days ago, Obama was speaking at a Clinton rally when a dissenter started yelling. He reminded everyone that we have free speech and everyone waited the guy out. Yesterday some poor guy quietly held a sign at a Trump rally saying, "Republicans Against Trump," and he was mobbed and beaten. What will life be like if this man and his violent followers win?
quote:He would know it, but he would quickly have his people remove it, before it became a problem.
Originally posted by Penny S:
This was Trump's reaction to the Obama story. Would he know truth if it came up and bit him?
quote:
Trump had stopped trying to be a normal candidate but he was no longer being Trump. It was a dark hybrid. He had lost much of the freewheeling joie de vivre that had taken him to strange, albeit controversial places. Instead, he had become a relatively coherent figure, articulating a clear world view – but one that was deeply paranoid and out of the mainstream, where the press was no longer a stalking horse but simply the enemy.
quote:And Illary would constitute a difference how?
Originally posted by Wesley J:
This is getting worse and worse - if this guy gets elected, it will be a tr-i-ump-ph for irrationality, untruth, uncouth and as said countless times before by a variety of learnéd people, simply: post-truth. It would be a 9/11 of electioneering.
I hope he won't, and will promptly have dozens of legal proceedings opened against him for his too often entirely illegal, indecent tricks and treatises.
This is one of the worst and most consistent episodes of high-ranking untruths, betrayal and lies I've ever been following in my life. I guess many others may feel the same!
quote:Incredible. What about 'openly endorsed by the mafia'? When will people wake up?
Originally posted by Penny S:
[...] Trump endorsed by the KKK under his slogan "Make America Great Again." [...]
quote:There would be fewer legal proceedings outstanding against the president. And that's merely those in progress.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:And Illary would constitute a difference how?
Originally posted by Wesley J:
This is getting worse and worse - if this guy gets elected, it will be a tr-i-ump-ph for irrationality, untruth, uncouth and as said countless times before by a variety of learnéd people, simply: post-truth. It would be a 9/11 of electioneering.
I hope he won't, and will promptly have dozens of legal proceedings opened against him for his too often entirely illegal, indecent tricks and treatises.
This is one of the worst and most consistent episodes of high-ranking untruths, betrayal and lies I've ever been following in my life. I guess many others may feel the same!
quote:Civil proceedings can settle in an instant.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:There would be fewer legal proceedings outstanding against the president. And that's merely those in progress.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:And Illary would constitute a difference how?
Originally posted by Wesley J:
This is getting worse and worse - if this guy gets elected, it will be a tr-i-ump-ph for irrationality, untruth, uncouth and as said countless times before by a variety of learnéd people, simply: post-truth. It would be a 9/11 of electioneering.
I hope he won't, and will promptly have dozens of legal proceedings opened against him for his too often entirely illegal, indecent tricks and treatises.
This is one of the worst and most consistent episodes of high-ranking untruths, betrayal and lies I've ever been following in my life. I guess many others may feel the same!
quote:Experts or not, I do not think any exhales of relief will be heard until the votes have been cast, counted and come in favour of HC.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I've quickly stepped out of my air raid shelter to reveal that the Planet America experts unanimously predict a Clinton victory.
quote:You mean criminal proceedings regarding statutory rape, sexual assault, embezzlement, fraud, theft of services -- where does the list stop?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Civil proceedings can settle in an instant. Criminal proceedings, not so much...
quote:I guess we'll know for sure in three days. Another analysis of Nate Silver can be found here. [NSFW]
There are two additional reasons why I think 35% is a very substantial overestimation of Trump’s chances of winning. If I understand correctly, the assumption of the 538 model is that 1)there is an unusual degree of uncertainty and 2)this uncertainty is equally likely to favor Trump as Clinton. Accepting the first premise arguendo, I don’t really buy the second. Trump’s unusual candidacy, to the extent that it can be expected to differ from the typical Republican coalition, should be more likely to attract middle-class white voters without college educations and less likely to attract Hispanic voters. The problem for Trump is that given historical turnout patterns, this presents much more upside for Clinton than Trump. And, in fact, in early voting the Latino turnout has been up substantially, including in Florida (where a loss would leave Trump drawing dead) and in the firewall states of Nevada and Colorado. Between this and Clinton’s far superior organization, I think the polls are much more likely to be overestimating Trump’s results than underestimating them.
quote:Dated, but applicable, and obligatory: link.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This will be my last poll analysis of this election cycle
quote:Source: the foot of this article.
Newt Gingrich, an adviser to the Republican nominee, tweeted: "Comey must be under enormous political pressure to cave like this and announce something he cant [sic] possibly know."
Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tweeted: "If FBI conclusions remain unchanged, that means she still was reckless & careless, still lied about classified info, lied re: # of devices."
Campaigning in Minnesota on Sunday, Mr Trump made no mention of Mr Comey's findings.
But he did say Mrs Clinton "will be under investigation for a long, long time, likely concluding in a criminal trial".
He also renewed his claims that the Democrat was being "protected by a rigged system".
quote:Answer: Yes, aloud. And it was taken seriously, as even in Australia (where we have our share of lying politicians) there is a widespread view that the US polls indicate that a substantial proportion of Americans have taken leave of their senses. Added to which the well-established American world-leading propensity for gun homicides makes for a frightening prospect.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Tukai, was this* read out aloud? And did the 'shooting each other' part raise any eyebrows, or get a snigger or two? Did anyone keep a straight face? But perhaps they would in Oz?!
Enquiring mind and all that!
quote:As far as Donald J Trump is concerned, it stops on the steps of the White House. It's as if people have never heard of Executive Privilege.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:You mean criminal proceedings regarding statutory rape, sexual assault, embezzlement, fraud, theft of services -- where does the list stop?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Civil proceedings can settle in an instant. Criminal proceedings, not so much...
quote:Or that most people still have a lot of team loyalty and vote on the party ticket, and the difference this year was in terms of the interest group that was able to push their candidate to the top.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But some 45% of the voting US electorate seem inclined still to do so.
That's an awful lot of angry, disaffected, or simply deluded, people.
quote:The referendum in Britain on the 23rd June showed the power of the angry and disaffected. Trump has played on that so, in addition to regular Republicans and the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote, Trump should have walked it.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Or that most people still have a lot of team loyalty and vote on the party ticket, and the difference this year was in terms of the interest group that was able to push their candidate to the top.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But some 45% of the voting US electorate seem inclined still to do so.
That's an awful lot of angry, disaffected, or simply deluded, people.
quote:The point I was making was that in general people are voting along party lines - an answer to Barnabas' implicit question of where that 45% was coming from. With a fairly small minority of Republicans voting Democrat on an 'anyone but Trump' ticket, and a slightly larger minority of Democrats voting for Trump on a protectionist ticket.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The referendum in Britain on the 23rd June showed the power of the angry and disaffected. Trump has played on that so, in addition to regular Republicans and the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote, Trump should have walked it.
quote:Not everyone can afford to take five hours out of a workday to vote, or leave their children unattended for that length of time.
Many people interpreted the lines as a sign of voter enthusiasm and approvingly commented on voters’ determination to wait them out. But long voting lines shouldn’t be a source of inspiration. They’re a foreseeable, avoidable problem — the result of poor foresight, misallocated resources, or deliberate neglect — that threaten Americans’ ability to vote.
quote:Yes. The guy who can't be trusted to keep a cool head on social media is frighteningly close to having the nuclear codes
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Trump's staff have cut off his Twitter access. He has twat his last tweet.
quote:That's a meme beloved of commentators I know, but I'm not sure there's any real evidence that it's true. One might just as easily argue that the referendum showed the power of the press, the power of the dishonest, the power of the ill-informed, or the power of the unintelligent. Doubtless if Trump wins, the commentators will argue that it was "another" vote showing "the power of the angry and disaffected" and it still won't necessarily be true.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The referendum in Britain on the 23rd June showed the power of the angry and disaffected.
quote:I wonder how much you can compare a referendum, especially THAT referendum, with a presidential election. Especially THIS presidential election.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:That's a meme beloved of commentators I know, but I'm not sure there's any real evidence that it's true. One might just as easily argue that the referendum showed the power of the press, the power of the dishonest, the power of the ill-informed, or the power of the unintelligent. Doubtless if Trump wins, the commentators will argue that it was "another" vote showing "the power of the angry and disaffected" and it still won't necessarily be true.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The referendum in Britain on the 23rd June showed the power of the angry and disaffected.
quote:There are two reasons for this. The first is that RealClearPolitics poll aggregator, not an analyzing predictor like 538. The other is that RCP has a pretty well known Republican 'lean':
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Huffpost article was pretty unfair; the assumption being that if 538 predictions were an outlier there must be something wrong going on. In fact the RCP aggregate poll has been showing a lower Clinton lead in the popular vote and a greater degree of uncertainty in its electoral map. Quite strange that it did not get a mention, since if 538 is an outlier about the degree of uncertainty in the result, RCP is probably a bigger outlier.
quote:I think Nate Silver's model doesn't have a built-in partisan bias, but I do think that some of the mathematical assumptions built into his model (as far as I understand it) may be biased against the frontrunner in any electoral contest. This year, Hillary Clinton has led Donald Trump pretty much for the whole election, so this built-in 'lean' in 538's model has affected her rather than her opponent.
RealClearPolitics (RCP) is a GOP-leaning polling average: RCP accepts polls that are obviously GOP-leaning. They include polls from GOP organizations that admit their bias and others that show it. These include polls that are landline only (conditional on demographics, voters on landlines are more Republican). And, while RCP just takes a simple average, they pick the cut-off to optimize for the GOP. For example, right now they have Colorado at +2.9 for Clinton and include seven polls. The most recent was 11/3-11/4 and the most ancient 10/28-10/31. Of the seven polls four are right-wing and would be rejected by Huffington Post’s Pollster. At least two of them are landline only and one, Gravis, is run by Breitbart (whose executive chairman is taking a leave to run the Trump campaign!). As far as timing, they do not include a 10/27-11/1 CNN poll in Pennsylvania that would boost Clinton’s average there, even though it was taken on 10/27-11/1, even though that timing working in acceptable Colorado. Anyway, you get the picture.
quote:I realize that, but it's always so much easier to blame President Obama for everything!
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Regards, the Oklahoma earthquakes. They are the result of fracking injection wells. Oklahoma has had increasing earthquake swarms because of increased fracking.
quote:Thanks for the link, Boogie. I like and admire Barbara Kingsolver, and have read and enjoyed several of her books. That article is an awesome piece of rage focused for a good purpose.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel this way too.
I'm not American, but - as a woman - the misogyny in the Trump campaign and the man himself hurts me at a visceral level. Seeing those huge crowds cry for him is painful.
quote:A California state official voted in Hollywood, and had to wait in line for 3 hours!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not everyone can afford to take five hours out of a workday to vote, or leave their children unattended for that length of time.
Many people interpreted the lines as a sign of voter enthusiasm and approvingly commented on voters’ determination to wait them out. But long voting lines shouldn’t be a source of inspiration. They’re a foreseeable, avoidable problem — the result of poor foresight, misallocated resources, or deliberate neglect — that threaten Americans’ ability to vote.
quote:Not quite. Although all eligible voters are sent a ballot, there are still walk up polling places available. But kudos for knowing that MST is a thing- no exaggeration, many smart people I know in other parts of the country have no idea that there is something between Central time and Pacific time.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that Colorado conducts its elections solely through mail-in ballots, so saying the polls close in this state at 9:00 p.m. EST (7:00 p.m. MST) is a bit meaningless.
quote:I don't watch television any more, but when I first moved to MST from EST I was always puzzled by network television announcing that a program would be on at something like "8 o'clock -- 7 Central." There really is life in the western half of the country!
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But kudos for knowing that MST is a thing- no exaggeration, many smart people I know in other parts of the country have no idea that there is something between Central time and Pacific time.
quote:And what was with that invasion of Texas? Totally lame.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Those happy days are soon to end. Obama now has less than three months to initiate a Muslim caliphate, take away all the guns, and get those prison camps in the parking lots of Wal-Mart going. He has really been lackadaisical and tardy on this and I think the conspiracy theorists have a legitimate cause for complaint.
quote:We normally close these threads about a week after election night. You will be out of your misery soon.
Originally posted by HCH:
Will someone please promise me that this thread will close not too long in the future (replaced, of course, by the 2020 election thread)?
quote:Yeah, what are we supposed to do with all these t-shirts?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And what was with that invasion of Texas? Totally lame.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Those happy days are soon to end. Obama now has less than three months to initiate a Muslim caliphate, take away all the guns, and get those prison camps in the parking lots of Wal-Mart going. He has really been lackadaisical and tardy on this and I think the conspiracy theorists have a legitimate cause for complaint.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel this way too.
I'm not American, but - as a woman - the misogyny in the Trump campaign and the man himself hurts me at a visceral level. Seeing those huge crowds cry for him is painful.
quote:And be sure the check clears.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I understand Trump's rally is going to be at a Hilton. I hope they insisted on payment up front.
quote:I hope the hosts will take into account that the actual election by the electoral college doesn't take place until December 19 and that the results aren't certified by Congress until January 6, 2017. There's a little drama at present with two Democratic electors from Washington state saying that they'll ignore the will of the voters in that state. This will only be relevant in a close election.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:We normally close these threads about a week after election night. You will be out of your misery soon.
Originally posted by HCH:
Will someone please promise me that this thread will close not too long in the future (replaced, of course, by the 2020 election thread)?
quote:Dissenting opinion, FWIW: There's no way that this particular election will be fully, legally settled in the next few days. Might well be Bush v. Gore on steroids.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:We normally close these threads about a week after election night. You will be out of your misery soon.
Originally posted by HCH:
Will someone please promise me that this thread will close not too long in the future (replaced, of course, by the 2020 election thread)?
Even if he stomps off, saying he never wanted that silly presidency, *anyway*, he will kick up a fuss. Recounts, rigged election, conspiracies, the world's coming to an end and it's all Hillary's fault, lawsuits, attempted criminal charges, urging his followers to "do something"... Lots of people won't like that at all. Recounts, deciding if recounts are wise. Upset supporters...especially a whole lot of uppity women who thought *this* would be The Moment... And I seriously worry about her, if she loses. She's been working towards this since she was a kid.quote:As far as I can make out, this one was started ten minutes after the polls closed in the 2014 mid-terms.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I seem to remember that when someone first tried to start this thread two years ago, a non-American host batted it down because it seemed waaaay too early to have a P.O.T.U.S. election thread. Oh, the poor innocent!
) )
quote:
What you get is a system which is hypersensitive, but can not undo a trend quickly.
quote:Iowa and Arizona, eh? Bold choices, but not outside the realm of possibility.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
My map
I think this should work...
AFZ
quote:Yep. Arizona polls don't really support that but the early voting data pushes me that way.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Iowa and Arizona, eh? Bold choices, but not outside the realm of possibility.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
My map
I think this should work...
AFZ
quote:I agree! May the best candidate win, whoever she may be.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Good luck America. May the person who's best for you and the world win clearly. And may the next 4 years see improvements and peace.
quote:I suspect that they were just as nasty and ignorant in past years, it's just that this time around Trump has given them tacit permission to let their freak flags fly. Being nasty and ignorant (i.e. "politically incorrect") was actually a major plank of Trump's platform.
Originally posted by Twilight:
A friend of mine who works at the polls every year told me she had never encountered so many nasty, ignorant people as this year. Trump supporters coming in wearing T-shirts that say things like "lock up the bitch," unable to understand the simplest instructions, and angry at her because she has to explain it to them.
quote:There are indeed laws against such things, mostly to prevent vote-buying. As long as no one is able to take some kind of permanent record or evidence of what they actually do in the voting booth with them when they leave the polling place no one will be willing to buy a vote that may not have happened.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Some sources say that Trump's son, Eric, has voted, but that his vote has been annulled because he took a pic of the filled-in ballot and... tweeted it (which seems illegal in NY).
Any truth in this?
quote:He did tweet a picture of his filled-in ballot, which appears to be a misdemeanor in NY. (The tweet has since been removed, but you can see it here.) I don't see anything about his vote being annulled, nor do I think that's a penalty for violating the law in question.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Some sources say that Trump's son, Eric, has voted, but that his vote has been annulled because he took a pic of the filled-in ballot and... tweeted it (which seems illegal in NY).
Any truth in this?
quote:Jennifer Rubin was excellent. She aimed high, when far too many of the rest have been aiming low. Good for her.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Since you can briefly read the POST coverage without penalty, let me draw your attention to their Opinion page. All the columnists are on the right-hand rail. Jennifer Rubin is the flagship conservative opinionator, and she's been great this year -- have a look at her piece about Republicans giving it a rest, or GOP excuses. Alexandra Petri is wildly funny and well worth perusing -- her time-travel piece from yesterday is great.
Under the Politics tab, slide down until you get to The Fix, which is the snappy updates bit below the main stories. Endlessly amusing.
quote:Let's hope it wasn't because, not having voted for years and years, they are not familiar with the current procedures.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I suspect that they were just as nasty and ignorant in past years, it's just that this time around Trump has given them tacit permission to let their freak flags fly. Being nasty and ignorant (i.e. "politically incorrect") was actually a major plank of Trump's platform.
Originally posted by Twilight:
A friend of mine who works at the polls every year told me she had never encountered so many nasty, ignorant people as this year. Trump supporters coming in wearing T-shirts that say things like "lock up the bitch," unable to understand the simplest instructions, and angry at her because she has to explain it to them.
quote:Robert Satiacum says he hopes it comes down to one vote and he can vote against Hillary because "it'll wake this country up".
There's a little drama at present with two Democratic electors from Washington state saying that they'll ignore the will of the voters in that state.
quote:It all depends. From Reuters:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
In other news: Trump campaign have filed a law suit about late early voting in Nevada. Nevada says the did what they always do - let everyone up to the last in queue vote who's arrived before official closure time.
Question: Is this a 'common sense' lawsuit, and just what's being done in such a situation, or another sign of Trumpian exaggeration?
quote:If the Trump campaign has evidence that voters were allowed to join the line after 8:00 p.m. and then cast ballots, they have a legitimate case. On the other hand, this could just be laying the groundwork for claims of "it was rigged and I was cheated!" Given the Trump campaign's record of not being able to back up its assertions with any kind of evidence I lean towards the latter explanation, but I guess we'll see.
Nevada state law says voters who are in line at 8 p.m., when the polls close, must be allowed to cast their ballots.
Trump's lawsuit, filed in a Nevada state court on Monday, said election officials violated state law because they allowed people to join the line after 8 p.m. at a polling location at a Latino market.
quote:I like the bible quotes... which for once are not in favour of the TFO!
“He’s not fit to be mayor even of a small village,” [Sajid] Khan, 67, said of Trump. “And he’s thinking of leading the country.”
quote:So the county officially denies Trump's allegations, which could be either the truth or ass-covering (or both).
Dan Kulin, a spokesperson for [Clark] county[, Nevada], told CNN that no early voting stations extended their closing times. They did, however, process voters who were in line at closing time to allow as many people to vote as possible.
quote:I have to admit I already saw that and thought of her.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
(Boogie, you have to see this.)
quote:That's brilliant! I agree that Boogie MUST see it.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is probably the most divisive presidential election in U.S. history, or at least recent history. But this video shows people from both sides can agree on some things.
(Boogie, you have to see this.)
quote:The likes of this probably. I don't know where turnout tracking stands in terms of dependibility.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
France Info's Washington stock market correspondent just reported a slight increase on the Dow Jones due to exit polls "not being reported on by the media so as not to influence the election" reporting a lead for Clinton in Florida.
I don't understand this media reporting of information not reported in the media, but I'll be content to go to sleep on that basis.
quote:Fabulous!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is probably the most divisive presidential election in U.S. history, or at least recent history. But this video shows people from both sides can agree on some things.
(Boogie, you have to see this.)
quote:Are you kidding? Gays getting married, men pissing in women's bathrooms, blacks getting welfare (and OUR jobs), Moslems being allowed into the country, Mexican immigrants getting jobs tending lawns for the rich -- it's hell out there man. It's hell.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Brenda
I suppose one of the issues will be this one. Just how much of a dystopia do the disaffected believe they already live in?
quote:I've also escaped to Downton Abbey, but on DVD.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
(Slight tangent.)
Bless PBS and my local station! In addition to covering the election, they're also running "Last Tango In Hallifax" and "Downton Abbey" tonight. Breathing room. w00t!
quote:IME, tracking difficult news can be easier if you listen to it on the radio, read it, or put favorite music on while watching/listening.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Watching the election coverage. This is terrifying.
quote:{{{{{{Kelly}}}}}}}
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm trying to hold out hope. All I can think is, "My profession is about to be decimated..." because, seriously, it will be.
quote:Amen to that.
Originally posted by molopata:
Just woke up from my slumber to this. G,W., come home all is forgiven. If Clinton wins, I'll promise never to say anything nasty about you again.
quote:Amen to that.
Originally posted by molopata:
Just woke up from my slumber to this. G,W., come home all is forgiven. If Clinton wins, I'll promise never to say anything nasty about you again.
quote:Who is/are G W? Dubya Bush?
Originally posted by molopata:
Just woke up from my slumber to this. G,W., come home all is forgiven. If Clinton wins, I'll promise never to say anything nasty about you again.
quote:That's it: Double Ewe Bush.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
molopata--
quote:Who is/are G W? Dubya Bush?
Originally posted by molopata:
Just woke up from my slumber to this. G,W., come home all is forgiven. If Clinton wins, I'll promise never to say anything nasty about you again.
Thx.
America world
quote:Dear God!
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
quote:Bad strategy. T's climate policies will swamp you there.
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
I think I need to book a ticket back to Honiara and take the bus back into the bush of Guadalcanal.
quote:I usually find something worthy in your posts. But your statements here are decidedly not helpful.
Originally posted by Firenze:
RIP USA.
It was a good idea when it began, but the genocide and slavery were always going to be bad karma. But it was the guns that finished it: once it became normal to arm yourself to go grocery shopping, then the madness won.
quote:Gaia might survive. We may not.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Oh Fuck.
That's all.
Well almost all. I guess we and the world will survive. Somehow.
But oh fuck.
quote:The trouble is that we are citizens of a client state, rather than a sovereign nation - no power and major consequences.
Originally posted by anoesis:
Yeah, I guess we will survive, somehow, Zappa. And hopefully there won't be a war. But I hate the feeling of impotence this sort of thing brings on. You and I are citizens of a sovereign nation, with a population about on a par with Kentucky (hardly one of the more prominent states in the Union) on the other side of the world, can't do a goddamn thing about how any of this plays out.
may his real influence be tiny, like his fingers and his soul
we sincerely share your pain and grieve with you.
quote:Well that's not like our John... (thought the same thing in the car on the way home.)
Originally posted by Huia:
John Campbell, the guy anchoring the report on Radio NZ is obviously partisan (for Hillary)and he is not sounding happy.
quote:What else is he gonna say?
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
"President Obama has a special #ElectionNight message for you: "No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning" "
Even one of my brothers thought he was a better candidate which was upsetting to say the least. They seem to think Trump will be less of a warmonger. Perhaps he is isolationist which doesn't bode well for us in Australia and the rest of the US' allies. But the world just feels like it's on a war footing and too many young people have forgotten the horrors of war.
quote:By the way, a good deal of the Americans here have been a part of this community since the Bush II era, and we are fully aware how America as a political entity affects the rest of the world-- particularly those of us who were against Desert Storm from day1. Why does that mean we have to skip over worrying about what is actually going to happen to those of us who will actually be subject to Trump's governance?
Originally posted by molopata:
Well in Europe's defence, as mindbogglingly silly Brexit was, it didn't promise to pull the Americas over the precipice with us. Now, Trump is another matter.
Would it be possible to at least enact some kind of emergency legislation before 20th January to keep his grubby paws off the nuclear button? I mean seriously.
But to all Americans here:
quote:Which is not to say that I am putting the whole of the US in the same boat. Just that the same wave of stupid would appear to have struck both electorates and left many shipmates in deep mourning. It's all come flooding back.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Oh Fuck.
It would appear that the US saw brexit and thought, we can do that.
What a mess.
quote:***This.***
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By the way, a good deal of the Americans here have been a part of this community since the Bush II era, and we are fully aware how America as a political entity affects the rest of the world-- particularly those of us who were against Desert Storm from day1. Why does that mean we have to skip over worrying about what is actually going to happen to those of us who will actually be subject to Trump's governance?
Feeling sorry for you all except those like Roman Lion who are celebrating. At least there's unlikely to be post-election violence now and everybody knows Trump was lying about the election being rigged. So that's a win for democracy. I'm sure Trump will claim it's only because of his poll watchers that there was no rigging though
quote:Which of these do you feel does not apply to Trump?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Good on the US voter, for keeping an unworthy, lying, corrupt, disingenuous piece of shit out of the White House.
God Bless the USA!
quote:You may have missed the part where Trump was in the lead. Unworthy (check), Lying (check, check, check), Corrupt (check), Disingenuous (check), Piece of Shit (check, check, check)
Originally posted by romanlion:
Good on the US voter, for keeping an unworthy, lying, corrupt, disingenuous piece of shit out of the White House.
God Bless the USA!
quote:Thank you, you're too kind.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I hope every Illary voter had to wait hours to cast that meaningless vote...
Idiots...
quote:Just so. It is the coup of the rich against the poor.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The "karma" is going to land on all the wrong people. The people most likely to have flourished due to the legacy of slavery and the proliferation of guns will be sitting pretty.
If by "karma" you mean "People who have historically been shit on having to swallow yet more shit", spot on , Firenze.
quote:Sorry. I did it too. Freaked out about how it's going to affect me and mine, and posted that here, instead of sympathy to my fellow citizens of the world who happen to dwell in these United States. You have my every sympathy, today, tomorrow, and in the years to come. Also, I don't have to walk around amongst my compatriots tomorrow wondering which of them voted for Trump. There are, I think, worrying divisions in my own society, but they're not that wide.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, you could say that Afghanistan has it a lot worse than us due to Bush's shenanigans. But does that mean I can't be angry about the three women's health clinics that closed in my neighborhood under his watch? Or the steaming pile of nasty education policies he fathered that *still* predominantly impact the minority children I serve? Or the fact that Bush spent nearly a decade lying straight into We the You People's faces to get his war off the ground?
I understand global impact, but I gotta get up and walk around in this mess, starting tomorrow.
quote:... and in what way does that constitute karma?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Just so. It is the coup of the rich against the poor.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The "karma" is going to land on all the wrong people. The people most likely to have flourished due to the legacy of slavery and the proliferation of guns will be sitting pretty.
If by "karma" you mean "People who have historically been shit on having to swallow yet more shit", spot on , Firenze.
quote:I feell so sorry for the American women who will now have to make a gigantic effort just to maintain what freedom they have over their lives and bodies at present, let alone improve their status.
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
quote:You may have missed the part where Trump was in the lead. Unworthy (check), Lying (check, check, check), Corrupt (check), Disingenuous (check), Piece of Shit (check, check, check)
Originally posted by romanlion:
Good on the US voter, for keeping an unworthy, lying, corrupt, disingenuous piece of shit out of the White House.
God Bless the USA!
However, as he isn't afflicting with ovaries, clearly far more qualified to be president
quote:IMHO, FWIW: throughout the thread, most non-Americans didn't acknowledge that, most of the time. Many of them did post as if they knew everything about our country, and showed little or no humility that a) it wasn't their country; and b) they might just possibly be mistaken, let alone wrong. Many didn't want to believe there's a long history of corrupt elections and of malfeasance, even when pictures were provided. Some seemed to be much more concerned with stats of not-their-country, than with actual people--actual Shipmates--who would be most directly affected.
Originally posted by Mili:
I think most of us here just assumed you would know we know it would be worst for shipmates in the US than the rest of us.
quote:Nice one, mousethief. Looks like there were 3% more than the 45% forecast by pollsters. At any rate, enough to make a world changing difference.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Are you kidding? Gays getting married, men pissing in women's bathrooms, blacks getting welfare (and OUR jobs), Moslems being allowed into the country, Mexican immigrants getting jobs tending lawns for the rich -- it's hell out there man. It's hell.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Brenda
I suppose one of the issues will be this one. Just how much of a dystopia do the disaffected believe they already live in?
quote:Well, if they had come out and voted for Hillary the way they did for Obama this wouldn't have happened.
Originally posted by Tukai:
May the Lord have mercy on us, both those inside and outside America - and especially for those inside who are neither white nor male.
quote:Several pages ago, I and others posted examples and links, including pictures of proof. Generally, we were disbelieved, or told it couldn't possibly be pervasive. If you desperately want to see, search on "box" or "lid". Those are the pics. The wider discussion will be fore and aft.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sorry, I don't understand, "Many didn't want to believe there's a long history of corrupt elections and of malfeasance, even when pictures were provided.". Can you point to those provisions above?
quote:Sam Wang gets to eat a bug. I don't get to re-read the Institutes. Two facts which are of no comfort at all.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Just discovered this was pre-Comey. He says he'll live with the quote. B62 forecast and pledge. If Sam Wang doesn't have to eat a bug, I will re-read Calvin's 'Institutes'. Compared to which, eating one fried locust is child's play.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's putting your money where your mouth is, and then there's putting your mouth where your polling predictions are:
quote:There followed some entomological snark.
Sam Wang
@SamWangPhD
It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.
quote:And (at least according to the Guardian) it does appear that the (white) female anti-trump vote was.
Posted by Jay-Emm
Not American, but I won't be happy till the results are in. There's just a bit of me that's aware the people with the more trumpian attitudes don't seem to be that unpopular. And again the attitudes of minorities against other minorities is also flawed. And in my own demographic heard the 'white men are the most opressed ...' far too often.
So bit concerned that the female/minority anti-trump feelings are overstated, and the white male pro-trump aren't.
quote:There's a good analysis by the BBC of why Clinton lost.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've heard it said (I can't find the link now) that the win was due to white working class voters in swing states moving from Obama to Trump - and that everyone else pretty much voted the same.
I don't know if that's accurate, I'll try to find the link.
Anacdotally, the press are reporting comments from people who went from supporting Bernie Sanders to supporting Trump because they thought "the real estate mogul held positions similar to Mr Sanders, such as curbing free trade and limiting American interventions abroad." (BBC)
:S
quote:It wasn't the sun I was worried about.
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
"President Obama has a special #ElectionNight message for you: "No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning" "
quote:White women voted 20 points more towards Clinton than equivalent white men. College-educated white people voted 30 points more towards Clinton than non-college educated people. (The only white subgroup to favour Clinton was educated women.)
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And (at least according to the Guardian) it does appear that the (white) female anti-trump vote was.
quote:It's the fact that it will be in eclipse for at least four years. Let's just hope it doesn't go out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It wasn't the sun I was worried about.
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
"President Obama has a special #ElectionNight message for you: "No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning" "
quote:C S Lewis, in 'The Last Battle'. It's as if the sun rose in the morning and it was a black sun. (Not using quotes - it may be a paraphrase.)
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:It's the fact that it will be in eclipse for at least four years. Let's just hope it doesn't go out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It wasn't the sun I was worried about.
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
"President Obama has a special #ElectionNight message for you: "No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning" "
quote:On the first point. She was an establishment candidate at a time when people were railing against the present order. On Saunders, we don't know how things would have turned out had he run a full campaign, and had to face Trump in the debates.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I do not blame Hillary. She was a very qualified candidate. The things thrown against her were so minor, yet blown up to be so major by the media and her opponents. I think had any other candidate been in her place, they would have been smeared as well. Bernie would have had the antisemitic factor working aginst him, and of course, as a self declared socialist, he has that strike against him. Sure, the far left loved him (I loved him), but that's not how had to be convinced. the swing voters, the ones in the middle, the ones who are apathetic.. I can't see that they would have chosen to vote for him. HIllary lost because Trump won.
quote:Well put. I think you can know someone too well, as in marriage, sometimes. This happens to some politicians who have been around for ages, and the electorate can easily turn on them, not because of any particular faults, but sheer tedium, or ennui. It happened in the UK with Blair, who apart from the Iraq shambles, just became too much of a caricature of himself, and in some people, provokes revulsion.
Originally posted by Pancho:
Clinton was carrying too much baggage: her own, her husband's, and President Obama's. The votes for Trump weren't so much votes for him as much as they were votes against Clinton and what ( in those voters eyes ) she represents. It's a twist on the saying "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." In this case a whole, whole lot of people took a gamble, they held their noses and voted for the devil they sort-of didn't know. It's just that they thought they new the other one too well and weren't willing to take that risk but were willing to gamble that the other one would not turn out so bad after all.
quote:I think, though, that it went beyond tedium or ennui. There was resentment, too. I need to say that this is not the same as the sexism, or racism or hate that I still see too many people blaming for Clinton's loss ( though I believe that exists.) There is a resentment among a lot of people against the attitudes they feel are being held against them and the way they've been ignored. To them, she represents those attitudes. I'm thinking of the statement she made earlier this year about putting coal miners out of business [link]. Those people see and hear things like this and take it as evidence that they're not really wanted.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well put. I think you can know someone too well, as in marriage, sometimes. This happens to some politicians who have been around for ages, and the electorate can easily turn on them, not because of any particular faults, but sheer tedium, or ennui. It happened in the UK with Blair, who apart from the Iraq shambles, just became too much of a caricature of himself, and in some people, provokes revulsion.
But Hillary, my God, think of her track record, estimable as it is, but yawn, it's zzzz ...
quote:I think you are spot on.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I do not blame Hillary. She was a very qualified candidate. The things thrown against her were so minor, yet blown up to be so major by the media and her opponents. I think had any other candidate been in her place, they would have been smeared as well. Bernie would have had the antisemitic factor working aginst him, and of course, as a self declared socialist, he has that strike against him. Sure, the far left loved him (I loved him), but that's not how had to be convinced. the swing voters, the ones in the middle, the ones who are apathetic.. I can't see that they would have chosen to vote for him. HIllary lost because Trump won.
And we need to think seriously about what allowed Trump to win. Those people aren't just racist misogynist assholes. Sure, many are, but that's not who really made a difference. There are people, a LOT of people, in our country who feel like they have been left behind, that their values don't matter, that they are treated as jokes and as losers, and they are angry about it. and they voted. They think Trump will make them matter again. I think they are very sadly mistaken, but that's not the point. the point is that they exist, and that they do feel that way, legitimately so. What can we as a country do to make them feel like they matter. How can we make them feel that they don't have to turn to a Trump to have their concerns treated with respect. To some extent we are blaming the victims for speaking out. sure they are betting on the wrong horse, but that they felt so very strongly that at least SOMEONE understood shows that we just can't continue to write them off as uneducated yokels. I don't know the answer, but if we want to move forward we have to figure this out. These are the same type of folks who voted for Brexit. It isn't just to piss off us liberals. it's because they genuinely feel left out and are angry about it.
if we jut focus on thei racism and hatered, I think we are missing much of the point. Yes, that's certainly there. Yes, its terrible. But it's also a reaction to something deeper. a primitive "circle the wagons, shoot at anyone not like us" reaction, but still not the core problem. If we cant look past that at what people are really angry about (loss of jobs, hope, feeling like the concerns of "the other" are more important than their concerns) then we may never move forward.
quote:I remember that, and also how the uneducated white males made fun of it. "Keep the change," their bumper stickers read. Now they will get to eat change Republican style for four years. Hope they can stomach it.
Originally posted by Russ:
Just as 8 years ago Obama was the candidate of hope for beneficial change.
quote:Gary Younge, writing in the Guardian, has been "embedded in a faded industrial town in mid-America: Muncie, Illinois. His conclusions here are remarkably similar to anyuta's view.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I do not blame Hillary. She was a very qualified candidate. The things thrown against her were so minor, yet blown up to be so major by the media and her opponents. I think had any other candidate been in her place, they would have been smeared as well...<snip>.There are people, a LOT of people, in our country who feel like they have been left behind, that their values don't matter, that they are treated as jokes and as losers, and they are angry about it. and they voted. They think Trump will make them matter again. I think they are very sadly mistaken, but that's not the point. the point is that they exist, and that they do feel that way, legitimately so....<snip>. If we cant look past that at what people are really angry about (loss of jobs, hope, feeling like the concerns of "the other" are more important than their concerns) then we may never move forward.
quote:And President-Elect Fart will change nothing. His ties and hats come from China. He rips off small businesses. He scams ordinary people out of their life savings. He cheats on his taxes.* Hey, left-behind guys, you'll never win the battle if you don't know who your real enemy is. Maybe that's why you got left behind ...
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...The guys left behind by capitalist forces have a legitimate claim to anger and fear. ...
quote:*No*, election fraud, not voter fraud. Done by insiders. People in the discussion made that same mistake.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ah GK, the myth of voter fraud.
What has that got to do with this election? Apart from being a lie used by the winner?
quote:I'll flat out dispute "ready" - there are plenty of women in US politics who have just as much talent and experience as a typical male presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And I'm in deep mourning over not having a woman president *finally*. It will be a long time before another woman is ready, let alone gets this far again. And we're not going to have anyone with Hillary's unique set of skills, accomplishment, and experience.
quote:Yebbut, that was a case in point. What she actually said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/) and how the media reported it are quite different things. Certainly in this country (I can't talk about the USA) a lot of the resentment is purposely stoked up by right wing press who run continuous stories implying that "they" are being given preferential treatment over "you". There are people in the UK who really believe that the moment you jump off the back of a lorry from Calais you're given a council house.
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:I think, though, that it went beyond tedium or ennui. There was resentment, too. I need to say that this is not the same as the sexism, or racism or hate that I still see too many people blaming for Clinton's loss ( though I believe that exists.) There is a resentment among a lot of people against the attitudes they feel are being held against them and the way they've been ignored. To them, she represents those attitudes. I'm thinking of the statement she made earlier this year about putting coal miners out of business [link]. Those people see and hear things like this and take it as evidence that they're not really wanted.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well put. I think you can know someone too well, as in marriage, sometimes. This happens to some politicians who have been around for ages, and the electorate can easily turn on them, not because of any particular faults, but sheer tedium, or ennui. It happened in the UK with Blair, who apart from the Iraq shambles, just became too much of a caricature of himself, and in some people, provokes revulsion.
But Hillary, my God, think of her track record, estimable as it is, but yawn, it's zzzz ...
quote:Their real enemy is the globalisation that has seen their jobs in factories, mills, mines, etc. move to other countries because it's cheaper to import raw materials from those other countries than it is to pay Americans to produce them. Which means that Trump's insular, protectionist stance is more likely to help them than Clinton's promotion of free international trade.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Hey, left-behind guys, you'll never win the battle if you don't know who your real enemy is.
quote:The question of the 'real enemy' is a moving target. I can understand why some people thought it was globalization that has taken their jobs away, and that Clinton is keen on free trade, which tends to oil the engine of globalization.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And President-Elect Fart will change nothing. His ties and hats come from China. He rips off small businesses. He scams ordinary people out of their life savings. He cheats on his taxes.* Hey, left-behind guys, you'll never win the battle if you don't know who your real enemy is. Maybe that's why you got left behind ...
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...The guys left behind by capitalist forces have a legitimate claim to anger and fear. ...
---
*He claims he's being audited. You don't get audited unless there's something fishy about your tax returns. He could prove otherwise in an instant, but hasn't and won't. Q.E.D.
quote:I.e., the objections to misogyny. Let's be clear about this. It is wrong to play this down. Immoral. Shameful.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
all the sniffles and sex talk
quote:And if they weren't also racists, Sanders might have made more headway.
Trump may be talking economic bollocks, but I can see why it seems to have hit home with some. (Of course, Sanders had made the same criticism, from the left).
quote:Oh FFS, I'm not playing down the misogyny. Can't I fucking abbreviate a section of the debates without being hauled up? If I didn't do that, my post would be ten pages long.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:I.e., the objections to misogyny. Let's be clear about this. It is wrong to play this down. Immoral. Shameful.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
all the sniffles and sex talk
quote:And if they weren't also racists, Sanders might have made more headway.
Trump may be talking economic bollocks, but I can see why it seems to have hit home with some. (Of course, Sanders had made the same criticism, from the left).
The economics of all this are brutally important, but make no mistake, they interact with sexism and bigotry in horrifying ways.
quote:It looks like smoke and mirrors to me. I mean Trump hit Clinton in an open goal, that is, her support for free trade, and TTP, and so on, but his own economic 'plans' are not exactly detailed, are they? But I guess they didn't need to be. If you hammer a candidate on their weakness on X, you don't always have to have a replacement. This may reflect badly on the intelligence of the electorate, but Trump is really crying buckets over that. All is fair in love and politics.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, Sanders actually made some kind of sense as a candidate for expressing dissatisfaction with how economic changes have affected the USA.
But the choice is instead a billionaire with a history of not paying for work. That's what gets me. The sentiments that led to rejection of "establishment" candidates, I understand. The choice of alternative, I do not. It's only understandable on the basis that folks wanted a posturing alpha male as their leader. They knew where they stood when it was a rich white oaf that was screwing them over.
quote:And this is frequently the stupidity of the electorate. Not just in this case.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you hammer a candidate on their weakness on X, you don't always have to have a replacement.
quote:How much choice over the alternative did people have, though? They can only vote for the candidates that are standing, even in the primaries. Once Clinton had beaten Sanders (and one wonders how many of them were eligible to vote in Democrat primaries anyway) there was only one alternative available, so they chose it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The sentiments that led to rejection of "establishment" candidates, I understand. The choice of alternative, I do not.
quote:No, there was not only option open. They had the choice of deciding that some things were not worth the price. They had the choice of figuring out that, however much the establishment was bad, the proffered alternative was worse.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How much choice over the alternative did people have, though? They can only vote for the candidates that are standing, even in the primaries. Once Clinton had beaten Sanders (and one wonders how many of them were eligible to vote in Democrat primaries anyway) there was only one alternative available, so they chose it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The sentiments that led to rejection of "establishment" candidates, I understand. The choice of alternative, I do not.
quote:What you're telling me is that a large proportion of human beings are idiots. I already know this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that's a rational argument. Politics mainly is not, I think. We are not Swift's Houyhnhnms.
quote:Well, no. I don't think that. I think politics has a large chunk of the non-rational in it, but that isn't surprising. I don't think humans are particularly rational, but this is a fascinating topic for elsewhere.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What you're telling me is that a large proportion of human beings are idiots. I already know this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that's a rational argument. Politics mainly is not, I think. We are not Swift's Houyhnhnms.
quote:Horace Vandergelder in Thornton Wilder's The Matchmaker (Hello Dolly) got it right: "Most of the people in this world are fools, and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion."
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you're telling me is that a large proportion of human beings are idiots. I already know this.
quote:See, just the one word is needed, not 10 pages.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the misogyny ...
quote:Yes, let's just make sure that every child gets a gold star and is told how special they are and that they scored full marks on the test.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's dangerous talk. It smacks of that 'de haut en bas' (looking down from a great height), that has added fuel to the attack by the right wing on the 'liberal elite'. We, who are intelligent, deprecate those who are not. Scary stuff.
quote:That is the thing about urban areas. Their inhabitants are fairly self-selecting and tend not to mind moving to get a better life. I spent much of my life in London and, to be honest, could not wait to get out of the sticks.
Funny thing about the "elite" coastal areas of the country - a whole lot of non-elite people choose to live here.
quote:That's the thing though. Trump is offering another treatment. A risky one, for sure, but if the patient chooses to try it rather than accepting mediocre hospice care until their disease kills them then I find it hard to criticise them for that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Acknowledging the perceived problems with the establishment does not lead me to the conclusion that the only choice available was to buck the establishment, any more than I would conclude that, with no other treatment option for a nasty disease being offered, I ought to choose to kill the patient.
quote:That's not what people are saying though (or at least, it's not what I'm saying). We're talking about people who are getting royally screwed over by the politics and policies of the elites. And the thing with that is, even if the elites are right in global or national terms, those people have the right to reject them because of it. They have the right to say "it's not working for me, so I want to try something different".
Originally posted by orfeo:
But neither am I interested in the constant talking down of expertise that says that "elites" never actually get to be damn well elite, that all opinions are legitimate now matter how divorced they are from facts, and that the inherent equal worth of human beings means we can never tell any of them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
quote:By electing someone who is deeply embedded in the 1% elite and who has spent a career screwing Americans out of money in order to become wealthy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they did.
quote:Not everything. He seems to be for protectionism, pulling out of overseas trade deals, and therefore shifting the economic scales such that it's more profitable for factories, mills, etc. to operate in the US rather than Mexico or China. If the factories come back, the jobs come back.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stop me if you've heard this before: the poor protest against the political elite by electing a demagogue who stands against everything that would or could be done to relieve their pain.
quote:No, he says a load of crap about protectionism - which he probably can't actually deliver - but what he stands for is how he has run his life and his businesses over the last 40 years. Which, to be honest, has not been about employing highly paid, highly skilled Americans, it has been about getting the job for the least amount of money and the most amount of profit.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not everything. He seems to be for protectionism, pulling out of overseas trade deals, and therefore shifting the economic scales such that it's more profitable for factories, mills, etc. to operate in the US rather than Mexico or China. If the factories come back, the jobs come back.
quote:Right, he might not follow through on his own dodgy ideas and might instead revert to being the oligarch that he's been up to now. No shit.
Sure, he may not follow through on that (a comment which could be made about any politician ever). But what was Clinton offering as an alternative?
quote:Except, as pointed out by this blog post, "the poor" voted for Clinton. This whole narrative of economic distress causing the masses of the disaffected to reject the establishment is very comforting until you start cruelly exposing it to facts. Non-white Americans are, if anything, much more likely to be living in economically disadvantageous conditions and yet overwhelming rejected Trump's supposed appeal to prosperity.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:By electing someone who is deeply embedded in the 1% elite and who has spent a career screwing Americans out of money in order to become wealthy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they did.
Stop me if you've heard this before: the poor protest against the political elite by electing a demagogue who stands against everything that would or could be done to relieve their pain.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:That is the thing about urban areas. Their inhabitants are fairly self-selecting and tend not to mind moving to get a better life. I spent much of my life in London and, to be honest, could not wait to get out of the sticks.
Funny thing about the "elite" coastal areas of the country - a whole lot of non-elite people choose to live here.
...
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
quote:And
In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.
quote:
Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively).
quote:Is anyone actually saying that? I don't think I am. I just think that Amanda's quote is dangerous, esp. the phrase, 'the rest of us are in great danger of contagion'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Yes, let's just make sure that every child gets a gold star and is told how special they are and that they scored full marks on the test.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's dangerous talk. It smacks of that 'de haut en bas' (looking down from a great height), that has added fuel to the attack by the right wing on the 'liberal elite'. We, who are intelligent, deprecate those who are not. Scary stuff.
I am not interested in any talk that says one kind of person is always right and another kind is always wrong. Indeed, acknowledging the poor results of globalisation and free trade is not compatible with saying the elites are always right.
But neither am I interested in the constant talking down of expertise that says that "elites" never actually get to be damn well elite, that all opinions are legitimate now matter how divorced they are from facts, and that the inherent equal worth of human beings means we can never tell any of them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
quote:No, they didn't. That post says that "the poor" voted for Clinton by a ten-point margin, whereas everyone else was more or less equally divided. Which says that "poor" isn't the determining factor.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except, as pointed out by this blog post, "the poor" voted for Clinton.
quote:Actually others don't. College graduates may have backed Clinton by 9 points, but according to that Pew page white college graduates went for Trump by 4 points.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry, others disagree.
Pew research says:
quote:
In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.
quote:Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist? And how can these (again, mostly non-white) immigrants steal rural people's jobs if they're all in the cities?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Poor small-town and rural white people blame their poverty on foreign countries and immigrants stealing their jobs, and either don't notice or aren't as affected by the casual racism.
Are they responsible for voting for the racism? Sure - but I think it's more a case of not willing to stand against racism than being actively racist. Particularly when the targets of the racism are city-dwellers, who are a very different species from small-town and rural folks, regardless of race.
quote:I'm not following: there are more white voters than anyone else, right? And there are less graduates than non-graduates? And the states that pushed Trump to the win had a swing of white non-graduates?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually others don't. College graduates may have backed Clinton by 9 points, but according to that Pew page white college graduates went for Trump by 4 points.
quote:Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
quote:For some reason, I suspect I'll be repeating this analysis a few more times before this all blows over.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except, as pointed out by this blog post, "the poor" voted for Clinton. This whole narrative of economic distress causing the masses of the disaffected to reject the establishment is very comforting until you start cruelly exposing it to facts. Non-white Americans are, if anything, much more likely to be living in economically disadvantageous conditions and yet overwhelming rejected Trump's supposed appeal to prosperity.
quote:I couldn't agree more. We saw this with Brexit as well, where people were talking about the ability to live anywhere on a continent as if it was something everyone should aspire to. It's as if concepts like community and family just don't matter to these people.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
quote:I was surprised at the way Callan phrased that. It also, of course, applies when government wants to move poor people away from expensive areas where they have support networks into cheaper parts of the country where they don't know anyone. I'm also glad to note you've seen through how unrealistic Tebbit's rhetoric on this was all those years ago
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I couldn't agree more. We saw this with Brexit as well, where people were talking about the ability to live anywhere on a continent as if it was something everyone should aspire to. It's as if concepts like community and family just don't matter to these people.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
quote:"Mobile" is part of America's mythology. The country was built by people who got on the boat and travelled half way around the world away from everything they knew. People have always moved across the country in search of a better opportunity, at a time when moving across the country was much harder than it is now.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As long as people remain human, we will continue to form ties and obligations that require us to stay in certain places. It's not right to blame those people and favor the ones who are mobile--usually only temporarily, either because they are quite young or because they have not formed new family ties for whatever reason. For most of them, the time will come when "mobile" becomes "gotta stay here." "Mobile" is usually a temporary stage of life.
quote:Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this the final position in the Electoral College?
Trump 306 (Including 16 for Michigan, 11 for Arizona)
Clinton 232 (Including 4 for New Hampshire)
quote:It's a fairly narrow victory, in the sense that you're looking at slim margins in several correlated states (basically, if you shift the white uneducated vote a couple of points, Clinton wins by a similar margin). And Clinton is narrowly winning the popular vote (by 0.2% - not all votes are counted yet).
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
quote:Possibly might not be racist if the focus is first on being unemployed; then on immigrants (of whatever flavor) for taking those jobs; and lastly on the particular flavor of immigrant, and (in their voice) "how different they are from us regular working (Country)ers who lost our jobs, and WE DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T SUPPORT OURSELVES AND DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PAY FOR RENT, GAS, AND FOOD! So there!"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist?
quote:But most of those pioneers wanted a *home*, whether built of sod, logs, or bricks. And the modern American dream includes owning your own home.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Mobile" is part of America's mythology. The country was built by people who got on the boat and travelled half way around the world away from everything they knew. People have always moved across the country in search of a better opportunity, at a time when moving across the country was much harder than it is now.
And yet we're claiming that the Trump voters are both idolizing the self-sufficient pioneer spirit and also rejecting the call to relocate for better opportunities?
That can't be right.
The difference, I think, is that relocation these days is a much shakier prospect.
quote:I became sceptical that that the hot-mic revelation was going to turn women away from trump in droves. We seemed to have forgotten the Fifty shades factor.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%. I will have to check these figures, but it makes the 'angry white men' idea seem a bit more complex.
quote:That's not really an analysis, more of a "just so" narrative bare of any supporting evidence and leaning on a bunch of stereotypes. For example, the claim that "the majority of ethnic minority citizens tend to live in big cities" is true as far as it goes, but the majority of white Americans tend to live in cities, too. The switch-over between majority rural and majority urban happened sometime between the 1910 and 1920 censuses. Plus I have to question an "analysis" that's premised on the idea that there are very few Hispanic agricultural laborers in the U.S.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For some reason, I suspect I'll be repeating this analysis a few more times before this all blows over.
quote:First off, it's the counties where employment has improved the most since 2010 where Trump is drawing a lot of his strength, so I'm not buying a bare assertion of this "economic anxiety" theory.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I guess it's just easier to blame it all on racist sexist scumbags or people who are too stupid or feckless to "get on their bike" and abandon their entire life and community in search of work than it is to accept that there may be a lot of people who are being failed by your politics to the extent that they find someone like Trump preferable to another four years of the same thing.
quote:If you made a list of the last ten elections and ranked them by electoral vote margin, 2016 would be at #8 on the list. The only two closer elections (in terms of electoral vote margin) were George W. Bush's two wins.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this the final position in the Electoral College?
Trump 306 (Including 16 for Michigan, 11 for Arizona)
Clinton 232 (Including 4 for New Hampshire)
quote:The numbers I saw had Trump 20 points worse with white women than equivalent men, and 30 points better with uneducated whites than educated whites. The sex gap was the same for educated and uneducated whites.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%.
quote:Agree with the analysis but not the conclusion.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Croesos--
quote:Possibly might not be racist if the focus is first on being unemployed; then on immigrants (of whatever flavor) for taking those jobs; and lastly on the particular flavor of immigrant, and (in their voice) "how different they are from us regular working (Country)ers who lost our jobs, and WE DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T SUPPORT OURSELVES AND DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PAY FOR RENT, GAS, AND FOOD! So there!"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist?
If they're racist, it *might* be that they've been driven to it, and are simply trying to survive.
It's really easy to pack all sorts of things into the term "racism", and not examine them to see what and why they are, and just sum them up with "bad human! Bad! BAD! Only social shunning for you!"
Changing the situation has to involve recognizing its roots.
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV.
quote:Interesting piece here
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact that their fears, struggles or beliefs are understandable, even natural, does not magically make them non-racist. They bought into racist propaganda. It is important that we understand why. But it's also important that we not white wash (term intentional) it by calling it something other than what it was.
quote:Although the Wiki article on the Presidential Election 2016 is still a work in progress, it does contain a decent summary of voter demographics. You have to scroll down a fairly long way to find it. Amongst other things it shows this.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:The numbers I saw had Trump 20 points worse with white women than equivalent men, and 30 points better with uneducated whites than educated whites. The sex gap was the same for educated and uneducated whites.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%.
Which means amongst other things that a whole load of men are fine with the pussy-grabbing that turns off their wives and sisters. Or something like that.
quote:This brought up a good old-fashioned 404 page.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:Interesting piece here
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact that their fears, struggles or beliefs are understandable, even natural, does not magically make them non-racist. They bought into racist propaganda. It is important that we understand why. But it's also important that we not white wash (term intentional) it by calling it something other than what it was.
quote:Thanks!
Originally posted by Gwai:
It works if you take the hyphen off the end. Try this one.
quote:If it's all due to racism as you suggest, then how do you explain the fact that most of the swing voters in states that went from blue to red voted for Obama last time?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump ran a campaign that openly and explicitly appealed to white nationalism and Republicans supported him much more enthusiastically in the primaries than any of his opponents who were much less explicit. He then ran a general election campaign that likewise appealed to white nationalism in a much more explicit way than any of his Republican predecessors and white American turned out for him in a way that they didn't for Mitt Romney or John McCain.
quote:If the only thing people want to talk about when analysing the result is racism, it's reasonable to assume that it's what they think is the only important factor.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's quite a segue from 'racism was a factor' to 'racism was the only factor' in Trump's win. I don't think anyone is really saying that, are they?
quote:So your question is how could a campaign that explicitly embraced white nationalism work when the previous two Republican campaigns that didn't somehow failed? I think to ask that question is to answer it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If it's all due to racism as you suggest, then how do you explain the fact that most of the swing voters in states that went from blue to red voted for Obama last time?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump ran a campaign that openly and explicitly appealed to white nationalism and Republicans supported him much more enthusiastically in the primaries than any of his opponents who were much less explicit. He then ran a general election campaign that likewise appealed to white nationalism in a much more explicit way than any of his Republican predecessors and white American turned out for him in a way that they didn't for Mitt Romney or John McCain.
quote:Then it seems pretty obvious that you're wrong. Economic conditions, even in small towns, were better in November 2016 than they were in November 2012 and much better than they were in November 2008. If improving economic conditions for white Americans is what it takes to get their votes, we wouldn't expect to see the results we did.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But more importantly, if it's all due to racism then how exactly do you plan to turn those votes back around to blue? If I'm right then improving economic conditions in small towns is all it will take, but if you're right then what are the options?
quote:I'm actually seeing the opposite here; multiple pre-emptive attempts to shut down any discussion of the role that Trump's front-and-center appeal to white nationalism, something that was notably different than his Republican predecessors, played in letting him narrowly succeed where they had failed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the only thing people want to talk about when analysing the result is racism, it's reasonable to assume that it's what they think is the only important factor.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's quite a segue from 'racism was a factor' to 'racism was the only factor' in Trump's win. I don't think anyone is really saying that, are they?
quote:I grew up in a time and place where racism, particularly but not exclusively against East Indians, could fairly be described as rampant. And, thinking back on it, it didn't seem to really have much connection to poverty. This was an oil-boom region, and I recall hearing just as much racist talk before the early 80s crash as after.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But more importantly, if it's all due to racism then how exactly do you plan to turn those votes back around to blue? If I'm right then improving economic conditions in small towns is all it will take, but if you're right then what are the options?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then it seems pretty obvious that you're wrong. Economic conditions, even in small towns, were better in November 2016 than they were in November 2012 and much better than they were in November 2008. If improving economic conditions for white Americans is what it takes to get their votes, we wouldn't expect to see the results we did.
quote:No, my question is why you think people who want to vote for a white nationalist candidate would vote for a black man when one isn't standing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So your question is how could a campaign that explicitly embraced white nationalism work when the previous two Republican campaigns that didn't somehow failed? I think to ask that question is to answer it.
quote:That doesn't chime with the various articles I've read by people who have actually been to some of those towns. Can you provide evidence?
Economic conditions, even in small towns, were better in November 2016 than they were in November 2012 and much better than they were in November 2008.
quote:You mean something more than "I think I read an article somewhere with some anecdotal account in it that backs up my opinion"? Here ya go. The data for non-metro median family income is at the bottom of each year's data set. A quick calc shows that everywhere the non-metro median income increased from 2008 to 2012, and in most places either increased further or held steady between 2012 and 2016.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That doesn't chime with the various articles I've read by people who have actually been to some of those towns. Can you provide evidence?
Economic conditions, even in small towns, were better in November 2016 than they were in November 2012 and much better than they were in November 2008.
quote:I think that white nationalism clearly got Trump through the Republican primaries. And clearly not enough white voters objected to it. But from over here the issue that was front and centre of the post-primary campaign was that Trump was running on a platform of not being a woman.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So your question is how could a campaign that explicitly embraced white nationalism work when the previous two Republican campaigns that didn't somehow failed? I think to ask that question is to answer it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:If it's all due to racism as you suggest, then how do you explain the fact that most of the swing voters in states that went from blue to red voted for Obama last time?
.
quote:I agree with this, but would be more specific. I think first and foremost he was running on a platform of not being Hillary Clinton. Not saying that there aren't lots of people who would never vote for any woman, just that this latest group included people who might have considered another woman. I really like her, but I was amazed when the Democratic party decided to run a woman who would have topped many lists of Most Hated Woman in America.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that white nationalism clearly got Trump through the Republican primaries. And clearly not enough white voters objected to it. But from over here the issue that was front and centre of the post-primary campaign was that Trump was running on a platform of not being a woman.
quote:Indeed. Presumably many of those who deserted the Democrats this time around were the same people who had voted for Barack Obama twice. It's possible, of course, that there is a significant body of voters happy with, and prepared to vote for, a black man in the White House but who would recoil at the thought of a woman there. Seems improbable to me, though.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I agree with this, but would be more specific. I think first and foremost he was running on a platform of not being Hillary Clinton. Not saying that there aren't lots of people who would never vote for any woman, just that this latest group included people who might have considered another woman. I really like her, but I was amazed when the Democratic party decided to run a woman who would have topped many lists of Most Hated Woman in America.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that white nationalism clearly got Trump through the Republican primaries. And clearly not enough white voters objected to it. But from over here the issue that was front and centre of the post-primary campaign was that Trump was running on a platform of not being a woman.
quote:Joe Biden.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Did the Democrats have anyone better though?
quote:My facebook feed which contains a lot of relatively open minded evangelical American friends seems to be pretty much 50/50 split between those who didn't want Hillary in office so voted Trump even though they dislike him intensely, and those for whom the reverse is true. By and large they all voted Obama the first time around, and probably about three-quarters of them voted Obama the second time around. So amongst my friends, there's a significant shift from at least marginal Obama support (it wasn't like either of his opponents were charismatic men who captured the imagination of younger voters) to those who never in a million years want Hillary in the White House. Some of those people voted Trump, a few voted third party. But my anecdotal evidence is to suggest that Hillary utterly failed to capture the imagination in the way Obama did. As one friend put it: "As a feminist, I have longed to see the day when we put a woman in the White House. Why did the first option for that have to be someone I really don't want to vote for?"
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Indeed. Presumably many of those who deserted the Democrats this time around were the same people who had voted for Barack Obama twice. It's possible, of course, that there is a significant body of voters happy with, and prepared to vote for, a black man in the White House but who would recoil at the thought of a woman there. Seems improbable to me, though.
quote:Hmmm. Well, that went well, then!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The USA will get a conservative Republican, and you and the rest of the world had better hope he's not one of the batshit crazy ones.
quote:I'd say there's a very good case to be made that he's a neo-nazi.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Did I really say that? Yes I did
Mind you, I don't think Trump is either a conservative Republican or batshit crazy. I don't think I'd ever accuse him of sincerity. Most of the batshit crazies were sincere. Nor would I call him a conservative Republican. He simply became whatever he needed to be to win. He may have convictions but I've got no very clear idea what they are. Other than a vastly exaggerated view of his own capabilities.
quote:But, sadly, Joe said no. As did Elizabeth Warren.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Joe Biden.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Did the Democrats have anyone better though?
quote:I have no idea what he is, or thinks he is, or was, or wishes he was or wants to be. Just about the only thing I'd put money on is that he is absolutely, definitely bat shit crazy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He simply became whatever he needed to be to win. He may have convictions but I've got no very clear idea what they are. Other than a vastly exaggerated view of his own capabilities.
