|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I do not agree. It seems that Trump does much better in open than in closed primaries. He draws support from Republican moderates [!] and from those who might not otherwise vote at all, certainly not for Cruz. If Trump gets the nomination, they will probably vote for him again in November. Meanwhile the Republican base, whilst indeed very suspicious of him (because of his liberal, left-wing ways), will reluctantly turn out for him because they hate Clinton so much. That's the path to President Trump.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had there. There's a danger that the scenario you sketch could come to pass. But what I think it would have to be a kind of grassroots republican movement that would carry him [i.e. Trump] to the White House. I think the rank-and-file party wonks would take a step back, because they know that he has the capacity to exact lasting harm on the GOP if he becomes president (although I personally think that would be the least of our problems). They might prefer to endure another four years of a Democrat president than have to work with a lunatic in the White House which belongs to them. I'm not saying they wouldn't campaign, I'm just saying it might be severely lacklustre.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Anyone else wondering if Trump is paying the more troublesome protesters? So he looks picked on?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
But some of the protesters were black. Black people are dangerous. That's why the police shoot them on sight.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
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)?
Nice bit of "missing context" there. Her full quote is...
quote:
I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.
Note the context. If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
[ 15. March 2016, 08:11: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Thus far I've seen recordings of Trump supporters telling black people to go back to Africa, telling Jews to go to Auschwitz and some unprovoked attacks on protestors leaving quietly and have even heard death threats. Trump and those who get caught up in the race baiting, mysogeny and violence disgust me.
Eta. God help us if he is elected.
[ 15. March 2016, 08:48: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
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.
But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
Do either of those categories genuinely exist in 2016 USA?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
To be honest I'm sure there are some who fit those descriptions. But I think the minority in either camp, which is why it is disingenuous to focus on those categories. "Innocent white separatists" and "Violent Jews" wouldn't have improved my statement either. It's the positioning of the nouns in a misleading way that is the problem and any number of adjectives aren't going to make it less disingenuous.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Elsewhere on the webs the witticism is making the rounds, explaining why it is Bernie Sanders' fault that Trump rallies are getting violent: "Trump can't be a Nazi until he blames a Jew."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
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.
But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If set upon she wants people to defend themselves. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
There is if the context suggests that implies a gross mis-characterization of what is happening.
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.
But it seems okay to me if x = innocent Trump supporters and y = violent leftist hoodlums.
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.
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.
Of course Trump has encouraged violence with his comments. Of course at least some of the attendees at Trump rallies are comfortable with the idea of violence against protesters who may be provocative with their words but are otherwise peaceful. And of course at least some of the Trump supporters have racial and other biases that lead them to be more violent than others would be in arguments with protesters that are of a different race or other social group.
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. Among this group of protesters, some may be looking for a fight, physical or not, and others may be full-time activists that are more radical than other protesters and are itching for a fight that will rally Trump opponents on the left to a more radical position. I think most protesters are nonviolent and just really upset that someone who uses the rhetoric and tactics that Trump does has gotten as far as he has and do not want to allow Trump rallies to be mere echo chambers of rage against scapegoated groups.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Is there evidence for this or is it speculation?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
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.
Is there evidence for this or is it speculation?
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.
Your average protester at a Trump rally is not the kind of person that goes from G-8 summit to G-8 summit, some of whom want to cause a commotion and get arrested and a very small amount of whom are in favor of violent and/or destructive tactics. But an authoritarian racist candidate with frightening rallies is exactly what such a full-time activist protester would flock to. I do not think all full-time activists are bad people. Some of them are pretty heroic.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
There's no such law. Arbitrary rules saying that you can't make comparisons with a certain period in history are bullshit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
That's not what Godwin's law actually says, but never mind. Do you think a comparison between 1930s Germany and 2010s US is well founded? If so, please elaborate.
[ 16. March 2016, 05:13: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
RuthW: Do you think a comparison between 1930s Germany and 2010s US is well founded? If so, please elaborate.
In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.
One thing that was happening in 1930s Germany, 2000s Europe and 2010s US is that large groups of people are apparently willing to follow a kind of authoritarian person talking bullshit but willing to single out certain groups as scapegoats. It is important to study the mechanisms of this, and therefore making this kind of comparison is a good thing.
I see no reason why I should listen to people giving a knee-jerk "Godwin!" reaction to this.
[ 16. March 2016, 05:20: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If it's a well-founded comparison, it should be made, of course. 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. What I said about Doc Tor's comment is that it may run afoul of Godwin's law -- I can't say that it does because it is so unclear.
I don't know why you think my comment was a kneejerk reaction. I gave it plenty of thought, even googling "1934 Olympia" because I thought it might refer to something I'm not aware of.
[ 16. March 2016, 05:30: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
RuthW: I don't know why you think my comment was a kneejerk reaction.
I didn't, and reading back my post it may seem that I did. Apologies.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The best result is that he IS elected and his impotence and incompetence exposed.
To his core, white, underprivileged, otherizing supporters.
If Obama couldn't close Guantanamo, how high do you think the Mexican financed wall is going to be?
[ 16. March 2016, 07:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Um, Martin, if you want him to actually get elected to prove a point, we'll be most happy to send him your way, and he can be prime minister...wayyyyy over there...
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kittyville
Shipmate
# 16106
|
Posted
RuthW - the reference to Olympia 1934 is to a rally of the British Union of Fascists at Olympia in London in that year, which is often cited as the beginning of the end of that movement.
[ 16. March 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Kittyville ]
Posts: 291 | From: Sydney | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
RuthW - apologies. Almost everyone who knows something about the pre-war British fascist movement knows about the BUF rally at the Olympia exhibition hall, London in 1934.
Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, was building a head of steam. His followers (known as Blackshirts, because...) had held several high-profile rallies before Olympia, but it was there that the crowd was infiltrated by anti-fascist protesters and - depending on which side you believe started it - violence on a large scale broke out.
Such were the scenes that the BUF started to lose public support, and some high-profile backers. It wasn't until the later Battle of Cable Street, where around 100,000 anti-fascists faced down the police protecting a BUF march through a mainly Jewish area, that the Blackshirt uniform was banned.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Kittyville and Doc Tor: Thanks! And wow. (Now I'll have to read up on pre-war British fascism. Very interesting.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Godwin's intention was to point out how inappropriate many analogies to Hitler and Nazism are:
quote:
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.
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.
Obama has nominated a moderate for Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a choice that seems in part designed to make Senate Republicans refusing to meet with the nominee and hold hearings look unreasonable, as he's hardly a liberal firebrand. I heard Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) in an interview on NPR this afternoon, saying that she planned to meet with Garland personally within a few weeks, and that while she respects the Republican Senate leadership's "alternate" view of the situation, she thinks the Constitution is clear and that the Senate should hold hearings and vote on the president's nominee. If I remember correctly, Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who's on the Judiciary Committee, also said he would meet with the nominee. Mitch McConnell says he's not going to play ball, but I wonder if this could end up being a costly mistake. If the Republicans nominate Trump (or if Trump gets a plurality of the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses but is not nominated in Cleveland), that plus not holding hearings on Garland (thus forcing Senators up for re-election in purple states to defend something that's going to be hard to defend), and also some reminiscing on the part of Democratic candidates about the Republicans shutting down the government -- it all makes them look like incompetent chumps. IMNVHO.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
A lot of fun has been made of it already, but I really don't understand why people like Christie and Carson would like to stand behind Trump like this. It is bleeding obvious why Trump wants them to stand there. For the same reason a hunter hangs a moose head on his wall.
Why go along with this? Are they kissing his arse right now in hopes of getting a high position in his government? If I were either of them, I'd just retreat to my villa and say "fuck it" to the rest of the presidential race.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Sure, but that kind of attitude is why you'll never be president! (Well, that plus not being a natural-born American citizen. And not wanting it.)
I just read the most heartening thing: "And in a hypothetical matchup with Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found this month that Trump loses the women’s vote by 21 points" (LA Times). Many Republican women will vote for Clinton or simply stay home if Trump is the Republican nominee. If they stay home, down-ballot Republican candidates will be in big trouble. The Republicans could lose the Senate. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I realise that the Hegelian history lesson applies and that Trump's supporters will not blame him for his failure and certainly that future generations of the masses can't ever possibly learn from it. Powerless, feckless, underprivileged majorities rarely get the leadership they actually begin to deserve or can even see candidates.
The turkeys voted for Cameron and Osborne here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I believe that Chris Christie endorsed Trump in hopes of a cabinet nomination later. Yeah right, he's trusting Donald Trump to keep his word -- the man has been married three times. It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
Carson is a fool, pure and simple. He can only do one thing well; that it was neurosurgery and not vanilla lattes with extra foam is his good fortune.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Brenda Clough: Carson is a fool, pure and simple.
Perhaps. What I've been reading mostly is that Carson was a puppet in a scam perpetrated by others.
He raised millions that the campaign firms didn't spend on campaigning, but mostly on themselves. Some people say that this was the idea all along.
Perhaps he's gotten so used to being a puppet that he now wants to be Trump's puppet?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
What do you have against Upper Volta?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's intention was to point out how inappropriate many analogies to Hitler and Nazism are:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Thanks.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
What do you have against Upper Volta?
They need some traffic control. On their bridges.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be pleasant to see Christie rewarded with the ambassadorship to Upper Volta.
What do you have against Upper Volta?
They need some traffic control. On their bridges.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Ruth W posted (inter alia):
quote:
If I remember correctly, Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who's on the Judiciary Committee, also said he would meet with the nominee.
There's only one Republican Flake in Congress? Surely not!!!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Just read up on Flake and Collins. I didn't think the Republican stalwarts who vote in primary elections allowed for moderate types who actually agree with a Democratic president on occasion.
I am heartened.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This is a long and fairly complicated analysis of Donald Trump's dealings with Atlantic City, when he was building a casino there. It went bankrupt in fairly short order, and in the process the Donald contrived to wriggle out of most of his promises. He is a common or garden weasel, after all.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Collins was first elected to the Senate 20 years ago, when the degree of batshit-craziness in the Republican party was not as high as it is today. Flake is only in his first term, so I don't know how he snuck in there.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Once again, here is the current standing of the delegate count. The race is a lot better defined since last time when it was still theoretically possible for several different candidates to win.
On the Republican side the delegate breakdown looks like this:
- Trump 690
- Cruz 424
- Various Withdrawn Candidates 189
- Kasich 146
- Unassigned 31
At the moment only Trump and Cruz can still mathematically win enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. This mathematical fact, coupled with the (metaphorical) pants-down spanking he received in his native Florida, is what prompted Marco Rubio to withdraw from the Republican primary. Despite the fact that Kasich has fewer delegates than Rubio and has therefore also been mathematically eliminated he has decided to stay in. Essentially Kasich is now running in the hopes that no one gets enough delegates to win outright and that he can emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention.
So how likely is that at this point? Donald Trump needs to accumulate 547 delegates to gain a majority, or about 54% of all delegates as yet unassigned. He's acquired about 48% of the delegates available to date, so he'd need to do a little better going forward, something that he may be able to do with the aid of a narrative of momentum and an increasing number of winner-take-all primaries coming up.
Ted Cruz needs 813 delegates to win outright. This means he'd need to win ~80% of all remaining delegates. With winner-take-all contests this is theoretically possible but Cruz would actually have to start winning, something he hasn't done since Wyoming on March 12.
But if the remaining delegates were divided evenly between Cruz and Trump, or if Kasich siphons off one or two big states (like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, which seem like they'd like his faux-moderate act), then it's definitely possible to arrive at the Republican convention without anyone having enough delegates to win outright.
An interesting additional wrinkle is that the Republican party instituted a rule in 2012 that the only delegates to be considered for the nomination would be those who had won a majority of delegates in at least eight caucuses/primaries. This was mostly to keep Ron Paul's delegates from playing procedural havoc with the convention, something Paul's supporters were notorious for.
At the moment, only Donald Trump has won a majority of delegates in eight jurisdictions. It's possible for the delegates to change that rule once they convene, but that would require an extraordinary amount of discipline on the part of non-Trump delegates, assuming that Trump does not have a majority of delegates.
On the Democratic side the race looks like this:
- Clinton 1,167 (+465)
- Sanders 838 (+24)
- Unassigned 13
- O'Malley 0 (+1)
The numbers in parentheses represent the number of unpledged (or "super") delegates declaring support for each candidate. Hillary Clinton has ~69% of the delegates needed to secure her party's nomination (2,382) if you include superdelegates in her total, or ~49% of the way there without relying on superdelegates. Clinton would need to gain 37% 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 ~74% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to win, or get some of the remaining 222 superdelegates to come over to his side. Not impossible, but increasingly unlikely at this point.
[ 18. March 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
