Trump is going to lose, badly
This topic was continued by Trump is going to lose, badly (Part 2).
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
This is a thread to discuss not Trump's fitness or unfitness, but simply whether or not he is going to—or can—win. I think it's becoming increasingly obvious he cannot. Check out this:
Boston Globe: The brutal numbers behind a very bad month for Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/19/the-brutal-numbers-beh...
Personally. I want Trump to not merely lose, but lose disastrously, leading Republicans up and down the ballot into a historic route. Only such a defeat will discredit "Trumpism" within the party. It's gotta die for it to live again.
It looks increasingly likely that'll happen, right?
Boston Globe: The brutal numbers behind a very bad month for Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/19/the-brutal-numbers-beh...
Personally. I want Trump to not merely lose, but lose disastrously, leading Republicans up and down the ballot into a historic route. Only such a defeat will discredit "Trumpism" within the party. It's gotta die for it to live again.
It looks increasingly likely that'll happen, right?
2southernbooklady
I don't think he can win. But then, I didn't think the GOP would let him be nominated, so what do I know?
I do think this is statement is pretty accurate:
In essence, he's treating the presidential campaign as a species of reality television. He's not interested in acceptance, he's interested in ratings. I think it will be interesting to see what happens when we get to the point where candidates are picking their running mates. It's a part of the process that is usually approached strategically. I think Trump's inclination will be to give it to someone who won't mind being an intern.
I do think this is statement is pretty accurate:
In essence, Trump is running a real-time experiment in a new form of presidential campaigning.
In essence, he's treating the presidential campaign as a species of reality television. He's not interested in acceptance, he's interested in ratings. I think it will be interesting to see what happens when we get to the point where candidates are picking their running mates. It's a part of the process that is usually approached strategically. I think Trump's inclination will be to give it to someone who won't mind being an intern.
3lilithcat
From your mouth to God's ear.
However, I don't put much stock in this: It was an "emergency" request . . . representing an urgent need for an infusion of $100,000 to put ads on the air in battleground states. Why Trump couldn't simply write a check to cover the costs apparently wasn't explained, but the missive was useful regardless: It demonstrates clearly the difficult position of the Trump campaign with only 142 days to go.
Politicians don't send out begging letters merely to get money. They do it to gin up enthusiasm among their supporters. It's a standard tactic.
However, I don't put much stock in this: It was an "emergency" request . . . representing an urgent need for an infusion of $100,000 to put ads on the air in battleground states. Why Trump couldn't simply write a check to cover the costs apparently wasn't explained, but the missive was useful regardless: It demonstrates clearly the difficult position of the Trump campaign with only 142 days to go.
Politicians don't send out begging letters merely to get money. They do it to gin up enthusiasm among their supporters. It's a standard tactic.
4timspalding
>3 lilithcat:
The whole "I'm rich, I don't need your money" think worked for him in the primaries. It's not going to work for him now, unless he ponies up and spends his own money. It looks like he won't. I speculate that's because he's actually not anywhere as rich as he says he is.
The whole "I'm rich, I don't need your money" think worked for him in the primaries. It's not going to work for him now, unless he ponies up and spends his own money. It looks like he won't. I speculate that's because he's actually not anywhere as rich as he says he is.
5timspalding
Gotta quote myself here:
https://twitter.com/librarythingtim/status/744620872498032640
https://twitter.com/librarythingtim/status/744620872498032640
6lilithcat
I speculate that's because he's actually not anywhere as rich as he says he is.
Which, of course, is why he won't release his tax returns.
Which, of course, is why he won't release his tax returns.
7lriley
#1--I can only think that the thought of Trump winning has got you a bit off balance Tim. 'Route' for 'rout' seems uncharacteristic for you.
Hillary should win. I can't altogether dismiss the thought though that some horrific scandal might come her way and the election go the other way. I'd put her odds right now at about 80% and the Donald's at about 20%. We'll see though. I'm pretty sure a lot of people at this point are looking very seriously at Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
Voting out of fear is a bad idea.
Hillary should win. I can't altogether dismiss the thought though that some horrific scandal might come her way and the election go the other way. I'd put her odds right now at about 80% and the Donald's at about 20%. We'll see though. I'm pretty sure a lot of people at this point are looking very seriously at Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
Voting out of fear is a bad idea.
8krolik
I hope he gets horribly trounced, but I don't know. When he first announced that he was a candidate, I considered it a sideshow, a bad joke. In following months, after his various gaffes and outrages, I thought it was a matter of days or even hours before his campaign imploded and he was out.
So...I've been consistently wrong about his prospects and staying power. When (if ever?) will the blowback really kick in?
At the anecdotal level, I've seen a surprising embrace of Trump by many in my hometown Facebook crowd, who weirdly recast him as some kind of regular guy. (Ouch ouch ouch.) I can't get my head around that, but I wonder if it's representative.
So...I've been consistently wrong about his prospects and staying power. When (if ever?) will the blowback really kick in?
At the anecdotal level, I've seen a surprising embrace of Trump by many in my hometown Facebook crowd, who weirdly recast him as some kind of regular guy. (Ouch ouch ouch.) I can't get my head around that, but I wonder if it's representative.
9richardbsmith
It has crossed my mind that he is trying to lose. He does not really want the job, just an ego boost. Especially with his comments related to the Orlando shooting.
10timspalding
Which, of course, is why he won't release his tax returns.
One reason. Another is surely that, like most rich people, he's got people who make sure he pays as little taxes as possible, and it won't look good.
'Route' for 'rout' seems uncharacteristic for you.
Yeah.
that some horrific scandal might come her way and the election go the other way
Right. From what I see, the email stuff is pretty terrible. But I don't think it's disqualifying, and boy do I not want Trump to win because of it.
Gary Johnson
I'll vote Johnson unless I think Trump and Hillary are close. If they are, I'll vote Hillary.
So...I've been consistently wrong about his prospects and staying power. When (if ever?) will the blowback really kick in?
So, I think it is kicking in. While many have been wrong, they've been wrong about a specific thing--how horrible and angry a large number of Republicans are. I just don't think the error applies outside of that context. Sure, Sanders has shown there's an angry, revolutionary mood among Democrats, but there are relatively few Sanders-or-Trump voters.
One reason. Another is surely that, like most rich people, he's got people who make sure he pays as little taxes as possible, and it won't look good.
'Route' for 'rout' seems uncharacteristic for you.
Yeah.
that some horrific scandal might come her way and the election go the other way
Right. From what I see, the email stuff is pretty terrible. But I don't think it's disqualifying, and boy do I not want Trump to win because of it.
Gary Johnson
I'll vote Johnson unless I think Trump and Hillary are close. If they are, I'll vote Hillary.
So...I've been consistently wrong about his prospects and staying power. When (if ever?) will the blowback really kick in?
So, I think it is kicking in. While many have been wrong, they've been wrong about a specific thing--how horrible and angry a large number of Republicans are. I just don't think the error applies outside of that context. Sure, Sanders has shown there's an angry, revolutionary mood among Democrats, but there are relatively few Sanders-or-Trump voters.
11lriley
#10--I would encourage you to vote for Johnson anyway. At least he's somewhat right on a bunch of issues.
It would be good to see both the Green and the Libertarian parties making headway in this election. If we could ever really get a third and a fourth party off the ground in this country we'll be better for it. That would be a good outcome from this election at least as far as I'm concerned. For me it's Jill Stein all the way and I voted for her in 2012 so......
It would be good to see both the Green and the Libertarian parties making headway in this election. If we could ever really get a third and a fourth party off the ground in this country we'll be better for it. That would be a good outcome from this election at least as far as I'm concerned. For me it's Jill Stein all the way and I voted for her in 2012 so......
12prosfilaes
>10 timspalding: there are relatively few Sanders-or-Trump voters.
There's apparently more than one would expect. Apparently a number of Sanders voters were bigger on the revolution than the details of said revolution.
There's apparently more than one would expect. Apparently a number of Sanders voters were bigger on the revolution than the details of said revolution.
13lriley
#12--Generally I think the bulk of Sanders supporters who do vote and don't stay home will vote for Clinton. There is going to be a lot more bleed though than the usual. A lot more than 2008 anyway. Amongst millennials a lot of that bleed will go to Stein. There are reasons for that--young people tend to be more uncompromising about sticking to their ideals--factor in 43 million people still paying off college debt in a really weak job market--a really weak job market that neither Clinton or Trump seem overly concerned about. There are also issues such as campaign financing, climate change, renewable energies, LGBT rights that Sanders kicks the crap out of both of them and he's not a warmonger either. It doesn't help either when democrats like Boxer make them out to be bullying and violent--pretty much after taunting them. Many Clinton happy people have the bad habit of insulting and dismissing them as naive and unpractical. I don't know if you have any kids prosfilaes but if you do and say any of them are between the ages of 18 and let's say 30 and you start dismissing their ideals and treating them like half wits you're going to get a lot of shit back from them that you're not going to like.
Anyway I hope they all vote for Stein--more realistic that Clinton gets somewhere around two thirds of them--maybe a little less.
Anyway I hope they all vote for Stein--more realistic that Clinton gets somewhere around two thirds of them--maybe a little less.
14timspalding
If we could ever really get a third and a fourth party off the ground in this country we'll be better for it.
The rules for US elections make third parties pointless, and always have. They only work when the party system is breaking down, as it may indeed be.
The rules for US elections make third parties pointless, and always have. They only work when the party system is breaking down, as it may indeed be.
15krazy4katz
Practically speaking, we need someone who can talk to foreign leaders and talk to Congress (which is almost like talking to a foreign country these days).
Since I live in such a liberal town and teach in a liberal university (I think my county was the only one in the Democratic primary to go for Sanders), I never get a chance to talk to someone who is planning to vote for Trump. I think I need that experience just to see what makes him so popular. I know this country is diverse, but to have him end up as the Republican party nominee is mind blowing.
Since I live in such a liberal town and teach in a liberal university (I think my county was the only one in the Democratic primary to go for Sanders), I never get a chance to talk to someone who is planning to vote for Trump. I think I need that experience just to see what makes him so popular. I know this country is diverse, but to have him end up as the Republican party nominee is mind blowing.
16southernbooklady
So if Trump is a sign of the implosion of the GOP, who will be able to bring it back? Is there a serious party figure with enough standing and vision to put it back on track, but not let it get hijacked by this weird right-wing populist movement that seems to be driving the bus at the moment?
17krazy4katz
>14 timspalding: I understand what you are saying. I voted for Anderson way back when it was Carter/Reagan. Big mistake on my part (at least from my perspective as a Democrat). I just felt Carter didn't know what he was doing. Hey, what can I say? I was in college.
18timspalding
>16 southernbooklady:
I'm not sure the old GOP can be brought back. As David Brooks keeps writing, the Reaganite coalition and moment has passed. The best elements of that vision—optimism, principles (rather than hatreds), free markets, getting government "out of the way," acceptance of immigrants, etc.—are stone-cold dead. The base has cast them off, in favor of a much darker vision, driven by ethnic chauvinism, nationalism, fear and anger. No, I think we're looking at the end of the "party system" (some call it the "Fifth Party System"), not just the party. The names of the parties may remain the same, but such events generally go much deeper. Of course, such a realignment may well take a decade.
The best result will be if we get two parties with important differences, but with core American values not divided across the parties. At the moment, Democrats want an evil GOP; it'll help them win. But voters eventually tire of the party in office, and down parties eventually come up again. Historically, Clinton should lose—eight years is a long time to remain in power. Twelve or fourteen will be a very long time indeed.
But a major realignment will only happen if Trump is defeated, and soundly. If Trump loses by a little, or—God forbid—wins, the GOP may be stuck with Trumpism. And we'll get Paul Le Page, or whomever, in four years, talking about poor white Mainers getting knocked up by black drug dealers.
I'm not sure the old GOP can be brought back. As David Brooks keeps writing, the Reaganite coalition and moment has passed. The best elements of that vision—optimism, principles (rather than hatreds), free markets, getting government "out of the way," acceptance of immigrants, etc.—are stone-cold dead. The base has cast them off, in favor of a much darker vision, driven by ethnic chauvinism, nationalism, fear and anger. No, I think we're looking at the end of the "party system" (some call it the "Fifth Party System"), not just the party. The names of the parties may remain the same, but such events generally go much deeper. Of course, such a realignment may well take a decade.
The best result will be if we get two parties with important differences, but with core American values not divided across the parties. At the moment, Democrats want an evil GOP; it'll help them win. But voters eventually tire of the party in office, and down parties eventually come up again. Historically, Clinton should lose—eight years is a long time to remain in power. Twelve or fourteen will be a very long time indeed.
But a major realignment will only happen if Trump is defeated, and soundly. If Trump loses by a little, or—God forbid—wins, the GOP may be stuck with Trumpism. And we'll get Paul Le Page, or whomever, in four years, talking about poor white Mainers getting knocked up by black drug dealers.
19artturnerjr
FWIW (not much - the one other presidential election I tried to predict the outcome of (Bush v. Kerry 2004) I got wrong), I think Trump is going to lose.
Two main reasons:
1) Trump's general unfavorables are startlingly high (70%) and even higher among key demographics that he needs to win over (76% among Americans under 50, 77% among women, 89% among Hispanics).* He needs to bring those numbers down significantly to win in the general. This means he needs to dial the belligerent rhetoric down. Which leads me to:
2) Despite what Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, etc. believe (or have conned themselves into believing), Trump is incapable of dialing it down. Ryan et al. seem to be under the impression that the Trump we've been seeing for the last year is merely a persona that he's created to seduce the lumpenproletariat of the Republican party in the primaries. Guess what, guys? He is, in fact, the ambulatory asshole that he appears to be. He lacks both the mental health and the maturity to present himself any differently than he already has. Therefore, he will lose to Hillary in November. It seems highly unlikely to me that things will play out otherwise.
*source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-pol...
Two main reasons:
1) Trump's general unfavorables are startlingly high (70%) and even higher among key demographics that he needs to win over (76% among Americans under 50, 77% among women, 89% among Hispanics).* He needs to bring those numbers down significantly to win in the general. This means he needs to dial the belligerent rhetoric down. Which leads me to:
2) Despite what Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, etc. believe (or have conned themselves into believing), Trump is incapable of dialing it down. Ryan et al. seem to be under the impression that the Trump we've been seeing for the last year is merely a persona that he's created to seduce the lumpenproletariat of the Republican party in the primaries. Guess what, guys? He is, in fact, the ambulatory asshole that he appears to be. He lacks both the mental health and the maturity to present himself any differently than he already has. Therefore, he will lose to Hillary in November. It seems highly unlikely to me that things will play out otherwise.
*source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-pol...
20timspalding
>19 artturnerjr:
I totally agree. I'd also note that Clinton has only just started to attack him. Chances are BOTH are going to lose favorability. But Trump's is already a catastrophe, and Clinton's merely a minor disaster.
I totally agree. I'd also note that Clinton has only just started to attack him. Chances are BOTH are going to lose favorability. But Trump's is already a catastrophe, and Clinton's merely a minor disaster.
21John5918
>18 timspalding: poor white Mainers getting knocked up by black drug dealers
Does "knocked up" mean the same in US English as it does in British English?
Does "knocked up" mean the same in US English as it does in British English?
22timspalding
>21 John5918:
Actually, I'm using the Britishism. And, yes, he said basically that. He's a monster, my governor is. He's what you get when you have an election with an attractive moderate in the middle of a disliked Democrat and a hard-right Republican—the Republican wins.
Actually, I'm using the Britishism. And, yes, he said basically that. He's a monster, my governor is. He's what you get when you have an election with an attractive moderate in the middle of a disliked Democrat and a hard-right Republican—the Republican wins.
23prosfilaes
>18 timspalding: Historically, Clinton should lose—eight years is a long time to remain in power. Twelve or fourteen will be a very long time indeed.
Eight years is pretty normal for US presidents. Including McKinley, Republicans had 16 years, Democrats (Wilson) had 8, Republicans had 12, Democrats had 20 (FDR+Truman), Republicans had 8, Democrats had 8, Republicans (Nixon/Ford) had 8, Democrats (Carter) had 4, Republicans had 12 (Reagan/Bush), Democrats had 8 (Clinton), Republicans had 8 (Bush W.) and Democrats (Obama) have had 8. Since McKinley, there was only one time a political party had only four years, with Carter.
Eight years is pretty normal for US presidents. Including McKinley, Republicans had 16 years, Democrats (Wilson) had 8, Republicans had 12, Democrats had 20 (FDR+Truman), Republicans had 8, Democrats had 8, Republicans (Nixon/Ford) had 8, Democrats (Carter) had 4, Republicans had 12 (Reagan/Bush), Democrats had 8 (Clinton), Republicans had 8 (Bush W.) and Democrats (Obama) have had 8. Since McKinley, there was only one time a political party had only four years, with Carter.
24timspalding
Republicans had 8, Democrats had 8, Republicans (Nixon/Ford) had 8, Democrats (Carter) had 4, Republicans had 12 (Reagan/Bush), Democrats had 8 (Clinton), Republicans had 8 (Bush W.) and Democrats (Obama) have had 8.
Right. I mean that eight is the usual limit. We've have eight party-switches since Roosevelt--a good marker for many reasons. Only one of them was over eight years. If Clinton wins, it'll be only the second time a party got three terms. If she wins a second term, it'll be the first time.
Right. I mean that eight is the usual limit. We've have eight party-switches since Roosevelt--a good marker for many reasons. Only one of them was over eight years. If Clinton wins, it'll be only the second time a party got three terms. If she wins a second term, it'll be the first time.
25proximity1
>18 timspalding:
I think a Trump victory would also force a major realignment --and a more important and needed one.
As strange as it may seem, I'd regard Gary Johnson in the White House as president as no less an embarrassment than Sarah Palin in that office. He's ideologically only interesting to other kinds of adherents of political right-wing nonsense. For someone on the genuine Left, Johnson has zero appeal--just like Palin.
ETA :
I think it would be a good idea to remember a couple of facts :
While Trump has won a majority of delegates, he has not yet been nominated--unlike in the Democratic party, the delegates determine the nominee by vote at the party's convention. None of them have voted yet and we don't even know if Trump will be the nominee. Of course, if he's rejected at the convention, he could still run as an independent--in which case, unless one or more of the primary candidates who Trump defeated runs either as the Rep. party nominee or, like Trump in this scenario, as an independent, most voters who made Trump either their first or their second choice--which constitutes the vast majority of those who voted--would probably vote for him again in November, nomination or no nomination.
A fascinating mirror-effect is at work : the Republican voters are forcing upon the national party elite a candidate which that elite don't particularly like or want. In the case of the so-called political opposition, the Democratic party's elite are forcing upon the voters a candidate which those voters do not particularly like or want.
Clinton's nomination seems more assured than Trump's. For anyone who believes that voters should be more than just political stage-props, that's a shame.
I think a Trump victory would also force a major realignment --and a more important and needed one.
As strange as it may seem, I'd regard Gary Johnson in the White House as president as no less an embarrassment than Sarah Palin in that office. He's ideologically only interesting to other kinds of adherents of political right-wing nonsense. For someone on the genuine Left, Johnson has zero appeal--just like Palin.
ETA :
I think it would be a good idea to remember a couple of facts :
While Trump has won a majority of delegates, he has not yet been nominated--unlike in the Democratic party, the delegates determine the nominee by vote at the party's convention. None of them have voted yet and we don't even know if Trump will be the nominee. Of course, if he's rejected at the convention, he could still run as an independent--in which case, unless one or more of the primary candidates who Trump defeated runs either as the Rep. party nominee or, like Trump in this scenario, as an independent, most voters who made Trump either their first or their second choice--which constitutes the vast majority of those who voted--would probably vote for him again in November, nomination or no nomination.
A fascinating mirror-effect is at work : the Republican voters are forcing upon the national party elite a candidate which that elite don't particularly like or want. In the case of the so-called political opposition, the Democratic party's elite are forcing upon the voters a candidate which those voters do not particularly like or want.
Clinton's nomination seems more assured than Trump's. For anyone who believes that voters should be more than just political stage-props, that's a shame.
26timspalding
>25 proximity1:
You don't vote for third parties because you really think they're the best person for the job. You do it as a protest, or an honorable way to avoid voting for a monster. Johnson is no monster, but he's an extremist. (For what it's worth, "right wing" doesn't fit him.) Jill Stein's qualifications resemble, but are slightly less impressive than, that of Ben Carson.
You don't vote for third parties because you really think they're the best person for the job. You do it as a protest, or an honorable way to avoid voting for a monster. Johnson is no monster, but he's an extremist. (For what it's worth, "right wing" doesn't fit him.) Jill Stein's qualifications resemble, but are slightly less impressive than, that of Ben Carson.
27proximity1
"You don't vote for third parties because you really think they're the best person for the job."
Really? Watch: in November, a lot of Sanders supporters are going to do what amounts to both . They're going to vote for Sanders as if he were a third-party candidate _and_ because he's the best person for the job.
Really? Watch: in November, a lot of Sanders supporters are going to do what amounts to both . They're going to vote for Sanders as if he were a third-party candidate _and_ because he's the best person for the job.
28timspalding
in November, a lot of Sanders supporters are going to do what amounts to both
Uh-huh. LOTS of people will be voting for Sanders this November.
Uh-huh. LOTS of people will be voting for Sanders this November.
29proximity1
Remaining uncertainties:
Trump's nomination.
Clinton's nomination.
Clinton's "nomination"--prior to the convention or to November's election day-- by a U.S Attorney for indictment on charges arising from the F.B.I.'s investigation of the private e-mail server for official State Dept. government business.
Trump's nomination.
Clinton's nomination.
Clinton's "nomination"--prior to the convention or to November's election day-- by a U.S Attorney for indictment on charges arising from the F.B.I.'s investigation of the private e-mail server for official State Dept. government business.
30lriley
#28--a week or so ago the young turks did a poll pretty much canvassing Sanders supporters on whether or not they were up to voting for Hillary in November. They are online news media and have tons of millennial (Sanders) viewers. I don't know if they are still canvassing or not but after a couple days they had about 20000 voting and only 17% saying they would vote for Hillary. FWIW Cenk the CEO of young turks argues all the time for voting for Hillary if Sanders is not the nominee. He seemed a bit shocked by the numbers he was getting. The Hillary campaign if it wants to bag these voters will have to move towards them--not away from them. Whether they do remains to be seen---until now there hasn't been any movement--maybe that comes after Sanders finally concedes. If there is no movement--there will be some who will vote for Sanders as a write in. There will be a lot that go over Stein. She is a real topic of conversation among younger voters even if older voters have no idea who she is.
31proximity1
>30 lriley: I'm really fed up with being urged to support for high political office people who are presented as supposedly progressive liberals-- people whose life biographies drip with a mainstream conservative's traditional background:
MBA school graduates, former lawyers at Wall Street law firms, Harvard Law School graduates, medical school graduates--these are the very soul of conservative training grounds. For generations, the steady stream of approved power-wielders has come predominantly from these fields and these educational backrounds.
In the same way that I detest having Jews monopolize the public relations of the Palestinians' plight, I do not like the children and heirs of wealth and power telling me how to fight the stranglehold which their own friends and families have on wealth and power and the corrupted political processes.
I've read Jill Stein's bio notes and she strikes me as thoroughly trained in the conservative paths of life and I cannot shake a nagging feeling that she is a phony and an opportunist at heart. I admit that I might have her completely wrong. But there is something about her I do not and I cannot feel deserves my trust. I wish I could explain this better but I can't. Another person might summarize my gut feeling as "I smell a rat."
I lived in Chicago. I know what the words "North Shore" mean socially and politically. Effing please!
-------------------
P.S: -- The forgiveness of student debt is a world-class handout not only to those who most need it but to those privileged students at elite schools who have the clout and knowledge to most take advantage of it. I can see Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton students and their peers at a dozen other Ivy League colleges and universities with their loan-exemption applications superbly tailored and completed in the most impressive way. I don't see poor kids from Mississippi or Kansas having anything near the competence in running through such a bureaucratic regimen. The student debt problem is a national scandal, it is true. But that by itself does not ensure that her use of it is other than a clever ploy to hook students--even if she followed through with such a debt-forgiveness program. Her presentation of it brings to mind a carnival side-show barker hustling the crowd to enter the side-show.
MBA school graduates, former lawyers at Wall Street law firms, Harvard Law School graduates, medical school graduates--these are the very soul of conservative training grounds. For generations, the steady stream of approved power-wielders has come predominantly from these fields and these educational backrounds.
In the same way that I detest having Jews monopolize the public relations of the Palestinians' plight, I do not like the children and heirs of wealth and power telling me how to fight the stranglehold which their own friends and families have on wealth and power and the corrupted political processes.
I've read Jill Stein's bio notes and she strikes me as thoroughly trained in the conservative paths of life and I cannot shake a nagging feeling that she is a phony and an opportunist at heart. I admit that I might have her completely wrong. But there is something about her I do not and I cannot feel deserves my trust. I wish I could explain this better but I can't. Another person might summarize my gut feeling as "I smell a rat."
I lived in Chicago. I know what the words "North Shore" mean socially and politically. Effing please!
-------------------
P.S: -- The forgiveness of student debt is a world-class handout not only to those who most need it but to those privileged students at elite schools who have the clout and knowledge to most take advantage of it. I can see Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton students and their peers at a dozen other Ivy League colleges and universities with their loan-exemption applications superbly tailored and completed in the most impressive way. I don't see poor kids from Mississippi or Kansas having anything near the competence in running through such a bureaucratic regimen. The student debt problem is a national scandal, it is true. But that by itself does not ensure that her use of it is other than a clever ploy to hook students--even if she followed through with such a debt-forgiveness program. Her presentation of it brings to mind a carnival side-show barker hustling the crowd to enter the side-show.
32lilithcat
>21 John5918:
No, it doesn't. As I understand it, in British English, it means "to wake someone up". In US English, it means to get, or get someone, pregnant.
No, it doesn't. As I understand it, in British English, it means "to wake someone up". In US English, it means to get, or get someone, pregnant.
33proximity1
>32 lilithcat:
Exactly. So, if Tim's use is the British usage, he supposedly meant, "to go round and wake (or find) someone at his home." Somehow, I think he intended the U.S. slang meaning, as you described.
Exactly. So, if Tim's use is the British usage, he supposedly meant, "to go round and wake (or find) someone at his home." Somehow, I think he intended the U.S. slang meaning, as you described.
34lilithcat
>27 proximity1:, >28 timspalding:
It will be tough for "lots of people" to vote for Sanders in November.
If he is to be believed, Sanders won't be on the ballot (he has said he won't run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination). Furthermore, many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent anyone who ran in a party primary to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate.
So those people would have to use write-in votes. And what a waste that would be. If Sanders won't run as an independent, I doubt that he would file the necessary affidavits required in most states to have those write-in votes counted. In several states, write-in votes are not even permitted.
It will be tough for "lots of people" to vote for Sanders in November.
If he is to be believed, Sanders won't be on the ballot (he has said he won't run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination). Furthermore, many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent anyone who ran in a party primary to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate.
So those people would have to use write-in votes. And what a waste that would be. If Sanders won't run as an independent, I doubt that he would file the necessary affidavits required in most states to have those write-in votes counted. In several states, write-in votes are not even permitted.
35klarusu
>32 lilithcat: Nope, in British English it also means 'to get, or get someone, pregnant'.
36southernbooklady
I do wonder about how Clinton's presidency will be perceived if she wins. (And really, it is crazy that I have to write "if"). When Obama won in 2008 I don't think there was any question that the country chose him -- that was part of what felt so significant about his election. The country chose an African-American to be president. Sure, the other side made a series of miss-steps (Sarah Palin? really?) in their strategy, but Obama's win was decisive.
A Clinton-Trump competition looks a little different. It is not people choosing Clinton so much as voting against Trump. So the fact that she is a woman -- as historically significant as Obama in terms of "firsts" -- is going to be significant than the fact that she ran against a crazy guy no one wanted to see in the White House.
A Clinton-Trump competition looks a little different. It is not people choosing Clinton so much as voting against Trump. So the fact that she is a woman -- as historically significant as Obama in terms of "firsts" -- is going to be significant than the fact that she ran against a crazy guy no one wanted to see in the White House.
37artturnerjr
>25 proximity1:
While Trump has won a majority of delegates, he has not yet been nominated--unlike in the Democratic party, the delegates determine the nominee by vote at the party's convention. None of them have voted yet and we don't even know if Trump will be the nominee.
And two of them have already dropped out rather than vote for Trump:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/arizona-gop-delegates-resign-rat...
Telling.
While Trump has won a majority of delegates, he has not yet been nominated--unlike in the Democratic party, the delegates determine the nominee by vote at the party's convention. None of them have voted yet and we don't even know if Trump will be the nominee.
And two of them have already dropped out rather than vote for Trump:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/arizona-gop-delegates-resign-rat...
Telling.
38proximity1
Qualified voters in these states may write in a candidate's name without prior filings or declarations by the candidate. ( Vive la démocratie! )
IA., N.H., N.J., OR. ,PA., R.I. & VT.
(Source : NASS / Natl. Assoc. of Secretaries of State ; 02/2016 )
IA., N.H., N.J., OR. ,PA., R.I. & VT.
(Source : NASS / Natl. Assoc. of Secretaries of State ; 02/2016 )
39lriley
#31--the only thing Stein is likely to get from running for president is an amount of name recognition. She's not going to win--neither is Johnson. If you're asking--I think she's committed. More committed certainly than Warren is right now who waited and waited and waited to see how the wind was going to blow. Stein's critiques in any case of both Hillary and the democratic party are on the mark. They were on the mark in 2012 as well.
To me in Stein's case as well as in Johnson's case I see them as vehicles to get their respective political parties on the map. We're not going to have to live with their decisions--they'll not be making decisions--they're not going to be elected but if they can get some real %'s out of this election that can make an impact on future elections. They'll give disaffected voters some place to go to. If either hits 5%--their parties will be eligible for matching funds in 2020 and that would be another boost for both respective parties--something hopefully they could build from.
As an analogy I think Sam Adam's is kind of a mediocre craft brewery--if you wanted to still call it a craft brewery--but it took a chunk of the beer distribution market and in doing so that helped other craft breweries to find their way. The Budweiser's, Miller's, Michelob's and Coors' who once held a stranglehold of a hegemony over the beer distribution world in the meantime have lost much of their market share. Well that's what they get for being awful at what they do. The Republicans and Democrats are like the Budweiser's and Coors' of politics. They are awful at what they do. They all make about 3 different versions of the same shit product. Go to any even half-assed respectable craft brewer and he/she will offer you all kinds of choices and he/she will have taken a lot of care in making them all.
To me in Stein's case as well as in Johnson's case I see them as vehicles to get their respective political parties on the map. We're not going to have to live with their decisions--they'll not be making decisions--they're not going to be elected but if they can get some real %'s out of this election that can make an impact on future elections. They'll give disaffected voters some place to go to. If either hits 5%--their parties will be eligible for matching funds in 2020 and that would be another boost for both respective parties--something hopefully they could build from.
As an analogy I think Sam Adam's is kind of a mediocre craft brewery--if you wanted to still call it a craft brewery--but it took a chunk of the beer distribution market and in doing so that helped other craft breweries to find their way. The Budweiser's, Miller's, Michelob's and Coors' who once held a stranglehold of a hegemony over the beer distribution world in the meantime have lost much of their market share. Well that's what they get for being awful at what they do. The Republicans and Democrats are like the Budweiser's and Coors' of politics. They are awful at what they do. They all make about 3 different versions of the same shit product. Go to any even half-assed respectable craft brewer and he/she will offer you all kinds of choices and he/she will have taken a lot of care in making them all.
40John5918
>32 lilithcat:, >33 proximity1:, >35 klarusu:
Yes, I agree with >35 klarusu:, that in British English we also use it to mean get pregnant, although we also use it to mean wake someone up.
Yes, I agree with >35 klarusu:, that in British English we also use it to mean get pregnant, although we also use it to mean wake someone up.
41timspalding
To me in Stein's case as well as in Johnson's case I see them as vehicles to get their respective political parties on the map.
I think the Libertarian party may be past that. This is the one in a hundred situation where things are so screwed up libertarians might actually matter—not by winning but by spoiling the election for the party that stands closest to them. When that happens, they can play a part in the overthrow of a party system, as the Liberty, Free Soil and Republican parties did.
Anyway, if Johnson keeps near his current 10% in national polls, it'll do more than raise awareness.
Incidentally, I'm totally with Romney on the libertarians--if Weld were the ticket-leader, I'd vote for him for real. He was a great governor of Massachusetts. He was the sort of libertarian-ish Republican New Englanders used to like--a moderate liberal on social issues, a moderate conservative on economic issues, a Republican who works with Democrats.
I think the Libertarian party may be past that. This is the one in a hundred situation where things are so screwed up libertarians might actually matter—not by winning but by spoiling the election for the party that stands closest to them. When that happens, they can play a part in the overthrow of a party system, as the Liberty, Free Soil and Republican parties did.
Anyway, if Johnson keeps near his current 10% in national polls, it'll do more than raise awareness.
Incidentally, I'm totally with Romney on the libertarians--if Weld were the ticket-leader, I'd vote for him for real. He was a great governor of Massachusetts. He was the sort of libertarian-ish Republican New Englanders used to like--a moderate liberal on social issues, a moderate conservative on economic issues, a Republican who works with Democrats.
42lriley
The things I like most about the libertarians is they're dead set against wars and occupying armies. On social issues they're pretty decent--considering. They want to legalize marijuana and end our idiotic war on drugs. I remember Ron Paul talking about shuttering many of our overseas bases. I like stuff like that. What I don't like about the libertarians is their economic agenda---but if you're asking whether I think they and Johnson are a better choice than Trump and the Republicans and Clinton (instead of Sanders) and the Democrats---yeah I'd rather see Johnson elected.
43prosfilaes
>24 timspalding: We've have eight party-switches since Roosevelt--a good marker for many reasons.
Roosevelt prompted the Constitutional amendment, yes. But I grabbed everything in the 20th and 21st centuries, which is safely arbitrary; you're cutting at an unround point that is inconvenient to your argument. You're going from 120 years of data to 64, and 16 elections, eight party-switches, is pretty sparse data.
If Clinton wins, it'll be only the second time a party got three terms.
If something happens twice in eight samples, that's not rare. 25% of a population isn't even really uncommon.
If she wins a second term, it'll be the first time.
And once in eight samples may be rare, but it may not be. At a 95% confidence interval, that's 12.5% plus or minus 23%. In the data since McKinley, it would be the third time in 12 party switches. (It would also be only 16 years out of 24, whereas the Republicans, Nixon through Bush H.W., had 20 out of 24.)
I also think that focusing on the party of the president is too narrow. The president themself matters, and Congress matters a lot.
Roosevelt prompted the Constitutional amendment, yes. But I grabbed everything in the 20th and 21st centuries, which is safely arbitrary; you're cutting at an unround point that is inconvenient to your argument. You're going from 120 years of data to 64, and 16 elections, eight party-switches, is pretty sparse data.
If Clinton wins, it'll be only the second time a party got three terms.
If something happens twice in eight samples, that's not rare. 25% of a population isn't even really uncommon.
If she wins a second term, it'll be the first time.
And once in eight samples may be rare, but it may not be. At a 95% confidence interval, that's 12.5% plus or minus 23%. In the data since McKinley, it would be the third time in 12 party switches. (It would also be only 16 years out of 24, whereas the Republicans, Nixon through Bush H.W., had 20 out of 24.)
I also think that focusing on the party of the president is too narrow. The president themself matters, and Congress matters a lot.
44barney67
I don't know what the OP is looking for. Can he win? Anything's possible, I guess. Act of God. Alien attack. Will he win? You mean you want me to get out my crystal ball?
No, he won't win.
It's been a lot of bluster and panic and hysteria over nothing. Good for TV. Not for the rest of us. Which tells you something about TV.
I knew 20 yrs ago Mrs. Clinton would be president someday. I knew 20 yrs ago watching Trump on Letterman that he was a douchebag. An election is a popularity contest, obviously, like high school. If you want to be popular, don't be a douchebag.
One hundred million voters. Without researching, I'm guessing few or none of our presidential victories have exceeded 8%. That's eight million out of 100 million. Not all that much, when you look at the numbers that way. The country is usually about divided evenly. I feel OK about that.
So...badly? I don't know. In the words of HRC, what difference does it make?
No, he won't win.
It's been a lot of bluster and panic and hysteria over nothing. Good for TV. Not for the rest of us. Which tells you something about TV.
I knew 20 yrs ago Mrs. Clinton would be president someday. I knew 20 yrs ago watching Trump on Letterman that he was a douchebag. An election is a popularity contest, obviously, like high school. If you want to be popular, don't be a douchebag.
One hundred million voters. Without researching, I'm guessing few or none of our presidential victories have exceeded 8%. That's eight million out of 100 million. Not all that much, when you look at the numbers that way. The country is usually about divided evenly. I feel OK about that.
So...badly? I don't know. In the words of HRC, what difference does it make?
45BruceCoulson
I think that people who are certain that Trump cannot win are engaged in wishful thinking.
46rolandperkins
. . ."wishful thinking" (45)
Sadly, I think youʻre right.
Yeah, sure the poll opinions wonʻt translate into primary votes.
Yeah, sure, the primary votes + the current polls wonʻt
translate into November votes.Everybody is going to suddenly
decide not to vote, after all. (Granted that, a lot will so
decide - - because they donʻt want Trump OR Clinton, and
voting for anyone else would be "wasting their vote".)
Sadly, I think youʻre right.
Yeah, sure the poll opinions wonʻt translate into primary votes.
Yeah, sure, the primary votes + the current polls wonʻt
translate into November votes.Everybody is going to suddenly
decide not to vote, after all. (Granted that, a lot will so
decide - - because they donʻt want Trump OR Clinton, and
voting for anyone else would be "wasting their vote".)
47prosfilaes
>45 BruceCoulson: Right now, Clinton has between a 6 and 8% lead in polls: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/20/hillary-clinto... . Trump has 30 paid staff: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e0b835d1255450484415b0d20df2996/trump-battlegrou... . Trump still doesn't have the support of the whole Republican Party: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/conventional-wisdom-can-republicans-unify-be... .
There's certainly arguments about how certain they should be, but it's not a random variable; he will or won't win. To conclude from the evidence that Trump won't win seems to be an reasonable position, and at the end of it, they'll be right or wrong no matter how certain they were.
There's certainly arguments about how certain they should be, but it's not a random variable; he will or won't win. To conclude from the evidence that Trump won't win seems to be an reasonable position, and at the end of it, they'll be right or wrong no matter how certain they were.
48timspalding
Yeah, as 538 put it, he has "a seat and a chip," but the fact is he's in a markedly worse position than any Republican nominee in the last century, including the ones who lost.
49cpg
>47 prosfilaes: "it's not a random variable; he will or won't win."
Whether a particular atom of radon gas in my basement emits an alpha particle in the next hour is a random variable even though it either will or won't happen.
Whether a particular atom of radon gas in my basement emits an alpha particle in the next hour is a random variable even though it either will or won't happen.
50cpg
>48 timspalding: "he's in a markedly worse position than any Republican nominee in the last century, including the ones who lost."
From here, it looks like Ford '76, Bush '88, and Dole '96 had worse poll deficits in June.
From here, it looks like Ford '76, Bush '88, and Dole '96 had worse poll deficits in June.
51AsYouKnow_Bob
>1 timspalding: I think it's becoming increasingly obvious he cannot.
(Me? I have LONG since given up on my ability to predict American elections.)
That said, I think what we're seeing in 2016 is an election that is shaping up to be a plebiscite on the American electorate.
I mean, I have a hard time persuading myself that 51% of the electorate would pull the lever for an unqualified nightmare like Trump; I have trouble thinking that of 25% of the public.
And yet here we are: somehow, Trump is within 'stealing distance' or 'ill-timed scandal' distance of the Presidency.
(Me? I have LONG since given up on my ability to predict American elections.)
That said, I think what we're seeing in 2016 is an election that is shaping up to be a plebiscite on the American electorate.
I mean, I have a hard time persuading myself that 51% of the electorate would pull the lever for an unqualified nightmare like Trump; I have trouble thinking that of 25% of the public.
And yet here we are: somehow, Trump is within 'stealing distance' or 'ill-timed scandal' distance of the Presidency.
52BruceCoulson
Mind you, I'm not claiming Trump WILL win; I simply don't care to dismiss that as an impossibility.
Depending on how reliable you feel certain currently available information is, you could say that it's unlikely he could win, perhaps.
But not impossible.
Depending on how reliable you feel certain currently available information is, you could say that it's unlikely he could win, perhaps.
But not impossible.
53.Monkey.
>52 BruceCoulson: Agreed. It's incredibly disturbing that it is a possibility, but it is certainly there. The fact that his numbers are insanely low with minorities is helpful, but certainly not conclusive enough to call anything yet.
54proximity1
>44 barney67: ... " One hundred million voters. Without researching, I'm guessing few or none of our presidential victories have exceeded 8%. That's eight million out of 100 million. Not all that much, when you look at the numbers that way. "
No presidential election victors ever garnered more than eight million votes?! or more than 8% of the popular vote?!
You should have "researched." You don't have to guess. There are factual records. Since 1824, no presidential election has seen the turn-out fall below 25% of the eligible voters.
(Bear in mind that the president was not always elected by direct popular vote and that prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (August, 1920), women could not vote in a U.S. presidential election.)
Since the presidential election of 1940, the losing main opponent's total vote tally has never fallen below 20m votes-- which is of course not necessarily 8 or more ercent of the total popular vote
, but even so--
See: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_...
No presidential election victors ever garnered more than eight million votes?! or more than 8% of the popular vote?!
You should have "researched." You don't have to guess. There are factual records. Since 1824, no presidential election has seen the turn-out fall below 25% of the eligible voters.
(Bear in mind that the president was not always elected by direct popular vote and that prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (August, 1920), women could not vote in a U.S. presidential election.)
Since the presidential election of 1940, the losing main opponent's total vote tally has never fallen below 20m votes-- which is of course not necessarily 8 or more ercent of the total popular vote
, but even so--
See: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_...
55proximity1
I do not envy Mrs. Clinton's position or that of people counting on her to win--if she becomes the nominee. When asked whose temperament is more like what they think of as better for a president, more answered "Clinton." In the same poll, most respondents said they thought Trump was more trust-worthy in a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. I find that, and the fact that Clinton can only manage a 7 to 8 point lead over Trump in a race where voters (responding to the poll) are allowed a choice between Clinton, Trump, Stein and Johnson to be rather remarkable.
Between them, Stein and Johnson take a 16% share of the responses. About 22% of respondents declared themselves still undecided. Of those, more than a third preferred either Stein or Johnson in a four-way contest.
Of course things could easily get much worse for Trump but, compared to Clinton, it's harder for me to see Trump's current position failing to improve at all between now and mid-to-late October than to see Clinton's position fail to worsen at all within that period.
With all we know about him, more people regard Trump as more trustworthy than Clinton. There are four months of uncertainty ahead in which Trump may learn to improve his image and in which Mrs. Clinton has to either reverse that negative trust datum or at least keep it from worsening.
Source :
Politico : "National Poll : Clinton Lead Narrows in Four-Way Race"
Between them, Stein and Johnson take a 16% share of the responses. About 22% of respondents declared themselves still undecided. Of those, more than a third preferred either Stein or Johnson in a four-way contest.
Of course things could easily get much worse for Trump but, compared to Clinton, it's harder for me to see Trump's current position failing to improve at all between now and mid-to-late October than to see Clinton's position fail to worsen at all within that period.
With all we know about him, more people regard Trump as more trustworthy than Clinton. There are four months of uncertainty ahead in which Trump may learn to improve his image and in which Mrs. Clinton has to either reverse that negative trust datum or at least keep it from worsening.
Source :
Politico : "National Poll : Clinton Lead Narrows in Four-Way Race"
56lriley
#55--it would be interesting to see what would happen if establishment republicans pulled off a palace coup at their convention and dumped Trump. I would bet we would have a five person race then and the republican nominee at best would be No. 3--with the possibility of worst than that. It would hand the presidency to Hillary---who is going to be awful....but even so.
I like seeing the numbers that Johnson and Stein are getting. At least half of the voting public--particularly older voters---haven't a clue who they are. Their numbers aren't good enough to get into the debates. The major party candidates even if they wanted (and I suspect very strongly that they wouldn't) would be disallowed from debating them. If Johnson and Stein could find an accessible media outlet to debate each other say three or four times before the election that could reach millions of viewers and contrast their viewpoints with the two major party candidates that would be an excellent thing.
It basically comes down to the two major parties giving us two of the worst candidates possible. Yeah--Clinton's trustworthy numbers are horrible and yet they're nominating her anyway. Go figure. OTOH my brother in law who is a die hard republican thinks there will be some kind of race war if Trump is elected. I tend to have my doubts about that. He thinks he'll be just like Hitler and once in there will be nothing anyone can do about what he does. We're not exactly living in the Weimar republic. Nor does Trump even seem to have a lot of clout with GOP party apparatchiks--his clout is with the voting base--aka the fuckheads. He thinks there is too much $ in politics and that it's all corrupt yet he still dreams about having the choice of an establishment republican like Jeb Bush to vote for. That's what he would like---another neo-con. So his way of fixing things like $ in politics is to vote for a politician who wants to cash in some more. Okay. Then again there's no such thing as climate change--plenty of ice still left in Greenland and the respective polar caps. We should drill, drill, drill.
I like seeing the numbers that Johnson and Stein are getting. At least half of the voting public--particularly older voters---haven't a clue who they are. Their numbers aren't good enough to get into the debates. The major party candidates even if they wanted (and I suspect very strongly that they wouldn't) would be disallowed from debating them. If Johnson and Stein could find an accessible media outlet to debate each other say three or four times before the election that could reach millions of viewers and contrast their viewpoints with the two major party candidates that would be an excellent thing.
It basically comes down to the two major parties giving us two of the worst candidates possible. Yeah--Clinton's trustworthy numbers are horrible and yet they're nominating her anyway. Go figure. OTOH my brother in law who is a die hard republican thinks there will be some kind of race war if Trump is elected. I tend to have my doubts about that. He thinks he'll be just like Hitler and once in there will be nothing anyone can do about what he does. We're not exactly living in the Weimar republic. Nor does Trump even seem to have a lot of clout with GOP party apparatchiks--his clout is with the voting base--aka the fuckheads. He thinks there is too much $ in politics and that it's all corrupt yet he still dreams about having the choice of an establishment republican like Jeb Bush to vote for. That's what he would like---another neo-con. So his way of fixing things like $ in politics is to vote for a politician who wants to cash in some more. Okay. Then again there's no such thing as climate change--plenty of ice still left in Greenland and the respective polar caps. We should drill, drill, drill.
57proximity1
>56 lriley:
..."my brother in law who is a die hard republican thinks ... if Trump is elected ... he'll be just like Hitler and once in there will be nothing anyone can do about what he does." ...
You should reassure your B-in-Law ( is he Jewish?) that if Trump turns out to be just like Hitler, then we know exactly what shall happen. David Cameron's successor, George Osborne, shall launch a surprise air attack on Tokyo. The Japanese shall declare war on Britain, bringing Trump's Amerika into war alongside the British allies. Japan shall ally with much of the Free World and, after many millions of deaths, Trump and Osborne shall be defeated and their countries occupied by victorious allied forces of Japan, Canada and Mexico. Cuba shall become a second home-refuge nation to Jewish Mexican hedge-fund managers who'd escaped Trump's Amerika before he built the southern wall--which was the impetus for Osborne's surprise attack on Japan--which had entered into a mutual defense pact with its sister Pacific ocean nation, Mexico.
All shall be well. And the Chinese shall make hundreds of block-buster movies based on the conflict.
58lriley
#57--Hitler had a lot more ideas than Trump has. Seriously from one day to another I don't know where Trump stands on anything. Hitler during his rise to power seemed pretty out front about problems and solutions. Trump closest resembles him with his anti-Mexican stance--other than than not really. FWIW Obama's administration has been deporting Mexicans and Central Americans like nobody's business but you almost near hear about it in the media and you certainly won't hear about it from other democrats. That's okay though. Just a little hypocrisy--nothing to worry about.
Brother in law is not jewish--he's just being hysterical and a bit whiny. There are some who still think the likes of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Reagan were all above board and great americans with a capital A. Trump stole their candy and he's about to eat it.
Brother in law is not jewish--he's just being hysterical and a bit whiny. There are some who still think the likes of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Reagan were all above board and great americans with a capital A. Trump stole their candy and he's about to eat it.
59cpg
>58 lriley: "Obama's administration has been deporting Mexicans and Central Americans like nobody's business"
Here is the DHS FY 2015 news release on immigration enforcement. It claims that 91% of ICE's interior (i.e., non-border) removals were individuals who were previously convicted of a crime.
Here is the DHS FY 2015 news release on immigration enforcement. It claims that 91% of ICE's interior (i.e., non-border) removals were individuals who were previously convicted of a crime.
61artturnerjr
The Opinion Pages: How Low Can the G.O.P. Go?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/campaign-stops/how-low-can-the-gop-go....
From the article:
The accompanying RealClearPolitics chart of trends over the last 30 days illustrates the downward trend in support for Trump — and thus the potential for broader setbacks on Election Day. The chart shows Trump going from a 1 point lead in late May to a 6 point deficit on June 19.
Less publicized trends among key demographic groups are compounding Republican anxiety. Trump’s heaviest losses, according to survey data, are among those voters he most needs to remain competitive: whites and especially white men.
When you compare polls taken between May 22 and 25 (the high point to date for Trump in matchups with Hillary Clinton) with polls published over the last week, you can see how much damage Trump has inflicted on himself. In matchups with Clinton, Trump has experienced double digit declines in support from men, from young voters, from all whites and from white college graduates in particular. (my emphasis)
Polls are also showing an increase in the percentage of Republicans who are indicating that they might sit out the 2016 election. The Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll measures how many voters refuse to say whether or how they will vote. Among Republicans, the percentage of these voters has risen since early May from 17.2 percent to 26.6 percent. Among Democrats, the percentage has remained relatively constant, fluctuating between 19 and 21 percent.
There are other recent measures of Republican disaffection and Democratic enthusiasm.
A Marquette Law School survey of Wisconsin voters, published on June 15, shows that among Democrats an increasing number of people are committing to vote in November — from 80 percent in March to 84 percent in June — while the percentage of Republicans committed to voting fell from 87 percent to 78 percent over the same time period.
***
Trump has placed himself in a vulnerable position with a vivid display of his eccentricity, his excesses and his uncertain financial resources, all of which add up to a diminishing opportunity to turn things around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/campaign-stops/how-low-can-the-gop-go....
From the article:
The accompanying RealClearPolitics chart of trends over the last 30 days illustrates the downward trend in support for Trump — and thus the potential for broader setbacks on Election Day. The chart shows Trump going from a 1 point lead in late May to a 6 point deficit on June 19.
Less publicized trends among key demographic groups are compounding Republican anxiety. Trump’s heaviest losses, according to survey data, are among those voters he most needs to remain competitive: whites and especially white men.
When you compare polls taken between May 22 and 25 (the high point to date for Trump in matchups with Hillary Clinton) with polls published over the last week, you can see how much damage Trump has inflicted on himself. In matchups with Clinton, Trump has experienced double digit declines in support from men, from young voters, from all whites and from white college graduates in particular. (my emphasis)
Polls are also showing an increase in the percentage of Republicans who are indicating that they might sit out the 2016 election. The Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll measures how many voters refuse to say whether or how they will vote. Among Republicans, the percentage of these voters has risen since early May from 17.2 percent to 26.6 percent. Among Democrats, the percentage has remained relatively constant, fluctuating between 19 and 21 percent.
There are other recent measures of Republican disaffection and Democratic enthusiasm.
A Marquette Law School survey of Wisconsin voters, published on June 15, shows that among Democrats an increasing number of people are committing to vote in November — from 80 percent in March to 84 percent in June — while the percentage of Republicans committed to voting fell from 87 percent to 78 percent over the same time period.
***
Trump has placed himself in a vulnerable position with a vivid display of his eccentricity, his excesses and his uncertain financial resources, all of which add up to a diminishing opportunity to turn things around.
62RickHarsch
As my son observed today: At least Donald Trump is immune to brain-eating amoebae.
63artturnerjr
A couple of news items that caught my eye:
In new poll, support for Trump has plunged, giving Clinton a double-digit lead
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-poll-support-for-trump-plunges-gi...
"Roughly two in three Americans say they think Trump is unqualified to lead the nation; are anxious about the idea of him as president; believe his comments about women, minorities and Muslims show an unfair bias; and see his attacks on a federal judge because of his Mexican American heritage as racist."
"Nevertheless, in a head-to-head general election matchup, Clinton leads Trump 51 percent to 39 percent among registered voters nationwide, the poll found. This is Clinton’s largest lead in Post-ABC polling since last fall and a dramatic reversal from last month’s survey, which found the race nearly even, with Trump at 46 percent and Clinton at 44 percent."
And then there's this, a sign of the impending Apocalypse if there ever was one:
George Will Leaves the G.O.P. Over Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/george-will-leaves-the-gop-over-do...
>62 RickHarsch:
:D
In new poll, support for Trump has plunged, giving Clinton a double-digit lead
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-poll-support-for-trump-plunges-gi...
"Roughly two in three Americans say they think Trump is unqualified to lead the nation; are anxious about the idea of him as president; believe his comments about women, minorities and Muslims show an unfair bias; and see his attacks on a federal judge because of his Mexican American heritage as racist."
"Nevertheless, in a head-to-head general election matchup, Clinton leads Trump 51 percent to 39 percent among registered voters nationwide, the poll found. This is Clinton’s largest lead in Post-ABC polling since last fall and a dramatic reversal from last month’s survey, which found the race nearly even, with Trump at 46 percent and Clinton at 44 percent."
And then there's this, a sign of the impending Apocalypse if there ever was one:
George Will Leaves the G.O.P. Over Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/george-will-leaves-the-gop-over-do...
>62 RickHarsch:
:D
64barney67
Trump comes up with a typical reply that sounds a lot like "four-eyes." I don't know if he's that stupid or if that's a calculated response.
My problem wasn't the glasses. Lots of people have those glasses. It's the damn bow ties. Never cared for them myself. Not even at weddings. They look effeminate.
My problem wasn't the glasses. Lots of people have those glasses. It's the damn bow ties. Never cared for them myself. Not even at weddings. They look effeminate.
67proximity1
(From The Guardian (London) )
I’m a Democrat, but I fear the elitism overtaking the party
by Sarah Eberspacher
"I may believe in women’s reproductive rights and LGBT equality and background checks for gun purchases, but I also took childhood naps each Thanksgiving under the watchful glass eyes of my cousin’s prized deer head mount. And I may now work in the white-collar journalism world, but I spent my formative summers wandering around my Illinois hometown’s “Bagelfest”, an homage to one of our community’s several factories and its working-class heritage.
"That’s all to say: the American electorate is complicated. But there is a narrow perspective that many liberals in my adult life use to paint the people from my hometown, and from the thousands of other places like it.
"In that painting, it’s just the people reached on landlines that admit they plan to support Donald Trump who actually do. And those Trump voters time and again are given a suspiciously similar face: white; male; blue collar. And then those less neutral descriptors: racist; sexist; uneducated. The first three are often shorthand for the second set.
"The Democratic party – and by that, I mean the party gatekeepers with power to wield media influence, which worked out great for the Brexit vote – are writing off those hardcore racists as an overblown minority that is making more noise than they can translate into votes. But overlooking “regular Joe” moderate voters like the ones who filled my childhood could be our undoing.
"My party has gotten cocky, and I fear that condescending mentality will lose us this election. Because for all of his divisive bluster, Trump has gotten one thing right time and again: small-town America is not doing great.
"Don’t get me wrong: I sure as hell won’t be casting a ballot for Trump this November. But I have watched this primary season unfold through a different lens than my very liberal coworkers and fellow New Yorkers, who live in a world that’s largely bounced back from the recession.
"Where my family lives, factories are closing. Schools don’t have enough money for teachers, and all of Barack Obama’s hope and change hasn’t done much trickling down in the last eight years. And just because the moderate voters living in these areas aren’t showing up at Trump rallies or plastering your Facebook wall with tirades about Muslims doesn’t mean they’re planning to support Obama’s heir apparent come November.
"That’s a hard truth for a lot of liberals with white-collar jobs and HBO subscriptions to process, but it’s a truth nonetheless. It’s a truth that is driving Trump fans who really do want to build a wall and “punish” women who have illegal abortions, but it’s a truth for millions of other middle America (yes, mostly white) voters who are overlooked once the primary race bunting comes down and the bandshells empty back out."
68artturnerjr
Clinton leads Trump by 12 points ahead of Republican convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0ZV2OA?feedType=RSS&fe...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0ZV2OA?feedType=RSS&fe...
69proximity1
>68 artturnerjr:
..."The poll results suggest that Clinton’s use of personal email for government business while secretary of state and her handling of classified information have not damaged her support among likely voters.
"But other polls show a closer race. " ...
70margd
In 2012, the Republican establishment candidate (Romney) won primaries, but not the election. In 2016, the Tea Party populist types got their candidate, (Trump). If he fails to win, as I most fervently hope, what is next, especially with Trump alienating so many? Reaganism and Ralph Reed types seem to have spent themselves as major forces within the party, and wouldn't attract many in a changing electorate anyway? What's next?
71proximity1
>70 margd:
My hunch is that, whatever is next, if HRC is "elected" to the White House, whatever is next for Republicans and Democrats, there's going to be some of an eight-letter word which begins with "V" and ends with "E" in the mix.
Democracy has been so defrauded for so long that the stink is now getting beyond what people can pretend not to notice.
My hunch is that, whatever is next, if HRC is "elected" to the White House, whatever is next for Republicans and Democrats, there's going to be some of an eight-letter word which begins with "V" and ends with "E" in the mix.
Democracy has been so defrauded for so long that the stink is now getting beyond what people can pretend not to notice.
72John5918
an eight-letter word which begins with "V" and ends with "E"
Sorry, that one has passed my limited vocabulary by completely. Care to tell us the word?
Sorry, that one has passed my limited vocabulary by completely. Care to tell us the word?
73lriley
I suspect Mike Pence is going to mollify some unhappy republican voters. He's an established republican who served many years in congress and in leadership roles. He fits into a kind of no nonsense conservative profile---so I think Trump is going to get a bit of a bounce from that. As well the Republican National Committee is doing what it can to reach out and calm those in the coup movements ahead of their convention. At least at the moment there seems to be more peace and reconciliation (flowers) coming from that party than from the Democrats.
I expect Hillary will get a bounce and maybe a big bounce if she names Elizabeth Warren as her VP. She may get a good bounce if she were to convince Sherrod Brown. Both of these have been amongst the most progressive Democrats for a long time. Naming either would be sending a kind of olive branch to Sanders supporters and help to unify the party. There are problems attached to her naming either. Personally I don't think Clinton and Warren really like each other a lot. Apparently she's a lot warmer towards Brown. Both Warren and Brown should push her policy wise to the left---does she really want to go there? I don't think so. On top of which naming either would lose the Democrats a Senate slot as the respective Republican governors of their respective states would almost certainly name Republican replacements to replace. If Hillary names a neo-liberal like Tim Kaine however I don't think she'll get much of a bounce at all. That won't appeal to the disaffected Sanders supporter.
The point is the Pence choice is going to appease some conservative voters and who Hillary chooses may or may not appease a lot of Sanders supporters.
It's not going to matter to me personally whoever she names. I've committed to Jill Stein at this point. I look at this election cycle as a major missed opportunity. I don't mind the idea of millions of pissed off voters either. Better that they're pissed off than complacent. At least when pissed off most people will try to figure out why they're pissed off and engage themselves in educating themselves more. The Democrats have made a mistake in my opinion by staking out the center and arguing for incrementalism. More and more people are moving towards the left and they want real change.
I expect Hillary will get a bounce and maybe a big bounce if she names Elizabeth Warren as her VP. She may get a good bounce if she were to convince Sherrod Brown. Both of these have been amongst the most progressive Democrats for a long time. Naming either would be sending a kind of olive branch to Sanders supporters and help to unify the party. There are problems attached to her naming either. Personally I don't think Clinton and Warren really like each other a lot. Apparently she's a lot warmer towards Brown. Both Warren and Brown should push her policy wise to the left---does she really want to go there? I don't think so. On top of which naming either would lose the Democrats a Senate slot as the respective Republican governors of their respective states would almost certainly name Republican replacements to replace. If Hillary names a neo-liberal like Tim Kaine however I don't think she'll get much of a bounce at all. That won't appeal to the disaffected Sanders supporter.
The point is the Pence choice is going to appease some conservative voters and who Hillary chooses may or may not appease a lot of Sanders supporters.
It's not going to matter to me personally whoever she names. I've committed to Jill Stein at this point. I look at this election cycle as a major missed opportunity. I don't mind the idea of millions of pissed off voters either. Better that they're pissed off than complacent. At least when pissed off most people will try to figure out why they're pissed off and engage themselves in educating themselves more. The Democrats have made a mistake in my opinion by staking out the center and arguing for incrementalism. More and more people are moving towards the left and they want real change.
74proximity1
>73 lriley:
I don't think any V.P. could possibly sway Hillary Clinton away from anything she wants to do or toward anything she doesn't want to do. No one. In general, unless they happen to have a true and trusting friendship, I don't think any V.P. has ever had any significant influence over the president--for better or for worse.
RE: ..."I don't mind the idea of millions of pissed off voters either. Better that they're pissed off than complacent. At least when pissed off most people will try to figure out why they're pissed off and engage themselves in educating themselves more."
How much better that they'd not been obliged by neglect to be either one-- pissed off or complacent--but rather that they'd been heeded from the first!
RE : ... "I expect Hillary will get a bounce and maybe a big bounce if she names Elizabeth Warren as her VP."
So if Count Dracula chooses Little Bo Peep as his running-mate, does he get a "bounce" or does Bo Peep's popularity take a hit? In my universe, it's the latter. Countess Dracula's image isn't burnished--even if Elizabeth Bo Peep leaps into her arms.
I don't think any V.P. could possibly sway Hillary Clinton away from anything she wants to do or toward anything she doesn't want to do. No one. In general, unless they happen to have a true and trusting friendship, I don't think any V.P. has ever had any significant influence over the president--for better or for worse.
RE: ..."I don't mind the idea of millions of pissed off voters either. Better that they're pissed off than complacent. At least when pissed off most people will try to figure out why they're pissed off and engage themselves in educating themselves more."
How much better that they'd not been obliged by neglect to be either one-- pissed off or complacent--but rather that they'd been heeded from the first!
RE : ... "I expect Hillary will get a bounce and maybe a big bounce if she names Elizabeth Warren as her VP."
So if Count Dracula chooses Little Bo Peep as his running-mate, does he get a "bounce" or does Bo Peep's popularity take a hit? In my universe, it's the latter. Countess Dracula's image isn't burnished--even if Elizabeth Bo Peep leaps into her arms.
75Jesse_wiedinmyer
>72 John5918:
Proximity is coyly threatening "violence". I assume, much like Trump, he will assure you that it won't come from him. But come it will, he will assure us.
Proximity is coyly threatening "violence". I assume, much like Trump, he will assure you that it won't come from him. But come it will, he will assure us.
76John5918
>75 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Violence. Thanks. That one never occurred to me, perhaps because I have just left Juba and am trying to forget violence for a little while!
Violence. Thanks. That one never occurred to me, perhaps because I have just left Juba and am trying to forget violence for a little while!
77Jesse_wiedinmyer
Never forget. Bear witness. And refuse practice.
And thank you again, JTF, for your sanity.
And thank you again, JTF, for your sanity.
78lriley
374--I think we pretty much share the same kind of skepticism when it comes to HRC. No I don't think whoever she picks is going to change what she does when/if she gets into office. For instance she's going to flip once again on TPP. Of that I have little doubt. She will keep her cozy relationships with the banks and corporations. Her party will circle the wagons around her and with the media's help cocoon her away from the anger and the frustrations of ordinary citizens. The point of who she picks to be her VP though will make a difference as far as bringing more Sanders supporters on board or leaving them out in the cold and looking for other alternatives. The choice is important as well for what it signals for the future as far as the democratic party goes. Ideally (to her and the democrats) she does 8 years and then her VP does another 8 years. If she picks Kaine for instance she's staking out a centrist territory for her party for almost the next generation and if she goes more left with her choice it might signal that the party has its eye on the trends of where younger voters in particular are going.
How much better?......you know to me there is this sense that Sanders was robbed in one primary after another. When you look at exit polls etc.---how historically they play out--just as a for instance. The democratic party might as well be the old Soviet Politburo. It's run by a bunch of old fogey's who are willing to do anything--tooth and nail to hang on to power. So yeah when Stein calls the democratic party counter-revolutionary I agree.
Anyway trying to convince people of my age why I think like I do and why they should too isn't very easy. Very very limited success at best. That's not really so okay---but OTOH there are those not having much fun with me either. It's a kind of quid pro quo. This shit can piss me off sometimes--but I have other things I can do to get away from it because I don't want to be pissed off all the time. When I die I have no intention of dying an angry person (even if I'm a suicide). I want to accept that my cycle is over. What makes me sad is to my mind the politics of the two major parties are ruining the futures of the young people of this country. There are so many of them in debt up to their eyeballs with no real future prospect in front of them to get out of it and meanwhile we're destroying the environment. The corruption of the two major political parties is what feeds this situation.
How much better?......you know to me there is this sense that Sanders was robbed in one primary after another. When you look at exit polls etc.---how historically they play out--just as a for instance. The democratic party might as well be the old Soviet Politburo. It's run by a bunch of old fogey's who are willing to do anything--tooth and nail to hang on to power. So yeah when Stein calls the democratic party counter-revolutionary I agree.
Anyway trying to convince people of my age why I think like I do and why they should too isn't very easy. Very very limited success at best. That's not really so okay---but OTOH there are those not having much fun with me either. It's a kind of quid pro quo. This shit can piss me off sometimes--but I have other things I can do to get away from it because I don't want to be pissed off all the time. When I die I have no intention of dying an angry person (even if I'm a suicide). I want to accept that my cycle is over. What makes me sad is to my mind the politics of the two major parties are ruining the futures of the young people of this country. There are so many of them in debt up to their eyeballs with no real future prospect in front of them to get out of it and meanwhile we're destroying the environment. The corruption of the two major political parties is what feeds this situation.
79proximity1
>78 lriley:
Not "How much better?" Rather, an emphatic statement in the subjunctive mood : "How much better!... (that... Etc.)
I'm just not interested in Jill Stein's candidacy--not even for cosmetic or training-wheels-purposes for basically the same reason as I'm no longer interested--since high school days--in having to raise my hand to ask permission to go to the toilet. It's undignified.
80barney67
Mike Pence is not a bad guy. I imagine he was chosen to lend some gravitas to the campaign. But it doesn't change my opinion of Trump.
81lriley
#79---IMO it wasn't Bernie Sanders movement per se. He didn't own it. The movement just coalesced around him as its major spokesman for a while. Because of his stature in political life as a US Senator he had the best (and also as it turned out a very good) chance of taking that movement to where it needs to go and he was sincere about bringing it on--and he had the history and the consistency of record to make it seem realizable. The Green Party like all third parties is in a marginalized state of development. But this year they and the Libertarians are going to to turn some heads--they're going to put up % points.
......and IMO no matter which of Trump or Clinton is elected in November things are going to get worse. Sometimes unfortunately for things to get better that's what has to happen. I don't think either of Clinton (and particularly) Trump are going to be any good at all. Clinton tied to her donors and jet setters her banks and corporations. If student debt, climate change, the job market, our middle east entanglements and whole other bunch of issues don't begin to improve but worsen for the population it's not going to bode well for either of these two to be reelected but it will bode well for alternative political parties to find the pulse of where American politics are going. Sooner or later those who ignore public will will get swept aside.
......and IMO no matter which of Trump or Clinton is elected in November things are going to get worse. Sometimes unfortunately for things to get better that's what has to happen. I don't think either of Clinton (and particularly) Trump are going to be any good at all. Clinton tied to her donors and jet setters her banks and corporations. If student debt, climate change, the job market, our middle east entanglements and whole other bunch of issues don't begin to improve but worsen for the population it's not going to bode well for either of these two to be reelected but it will bode well for alternative political parties to find the pulse of where American politics are going. Sooner or later those who ignore public will will get swept aside.
82proximity1
>81 lriley:
There's just nothing you can't rationalize your way out of or away from, is there? "Not Bernie's movement per se" ?
Maybe Stein is really "different." But we have nothing but spit and hope to base that view on. Her background and HRC's are so similar that their families might have once eventually belonged to the same private country club.
Sanders, too, has now undermined virtually everything he struggled to accomplish in his campaign simply by endorsing Clinton. Whoever inherits this movement shall have to re-inspire those who Sanders drew to the campaign and convince them that years of work to come won't eventually be for nothing. Why should anyone believe that after all that we've seen from Obama, the Clintons and, now, Sanders?
The California legal challenges to the election fraud of the Clinton campaign are now also rendered moot by Sanders' endorsement of Clinton. No court shall hear a case now that the electoral challenge is moot because, in endorsing Clinton, Sanders has also, from a legal standpoint, also implicitly endorsed her underhanded and perhaps illegal methods. Courts only hear "cases and controversies" and, when he endorsed Clinton, Sanders demonstrated that there is now no such thing.
------
ETA:
RE--
" If student debt, climate change, the job market, our middle east entanglements and whole other bunch of issues don't begin to improve but worsen for the population it's not going to bode well for either of these two to be reelected but it will bode well for alternative political parties to find the pulse of where American politics are going. Sooner or later those who ignore public will will get swept aside. "
So, in sum, what you're counting on, the thing you have to hope for, is that things get really much worse--so bad in fact that there'll be an irresistible backlash.
So far, anyone looking at the reality of current and just-concluded events would be inclined to think that there is simply no cause to be at all concerned.
There's just nothing you can't rationalize your way out of or away from, is there? "Not Bernie's movement per se" ?
Maybe Stein is really "different." But we have nothing but spit and hope to base that view on. Her background and HRC's are so similar that their families might have once eventually belonged to the same private country club.
Sanders, too, has now undermined virtually everything he struggled to accomplish in his campaign simply by endorsing Clinton. Whoever inherits this movement shall have to re-inspire those who Sanders drew to the campaign and convince them that years of work to come won't eventually be for nothing. Why should anyone believe that after all that we've seen from Obama, the Clintons and, now, Sanders?
The California legal challenges to the election fraud of the Clinton campaign are now also rendered moot by Sanders' endorsement of Clinton. No court shall hear a case now that the electoral challenge is moot because, in endorsing Clinton, Sanders has also, from a legal standpoint, also implicitly endorsed her underhanded and perhaps illegal methods. Courts only hear "cases and controversies" and, when he endorsed Clinton, Sanders demonstrated that there is now no such thing.
------
ETA:
RE--
" If student debt, climate change, the job market, our middle east entanglements and whole other bunch of issues don't begin to improve but worsen for the population it's not going to bode well for either of these two to be reelected but it will bode well for alternative political parties to find the pulse of where American politics are going. Sooner or later those who ignore public will will get swept aside. "
So, in sum, what you're counting on, the thing you have to hope for, is that things get really much worse--so bad in fact that there'll be an irresistible backlash.
So far, anyone looking at the reality of current and just-concluded events would be inclined to think that there is simply no cause to be at all concerned.
83RickHarsch
>82 proximity1: Sanders did what he had to do. At this point his only chance to do something of value is to influence Democrat policy. That is not to say I personally see any reason for optimism, but given that no revolution is incipient...go for abortion rights, workers' rights, better health care, more equitable taxation...My bet is that only abortion rights will prevail, if that. But Sanders did great, and his followers will understand, most of them, why he supported Clinton.
I saw Warren speaking at a gig supporting Clinton, and she was brilliant, saying all you would expect her to say, Clinton implicitly in agreement.
I saw Warren speaking at a gig supporting Clinton, and she was brilliant, saying all you would expect her to say, Clinton implicitly in agreement.
84RickHarsch
My son Arjun: '40% are for Trump, 40% are for Hillary? Where are the other 20%? They're going to Canada.'
85krazy4katz
I think Hillary would be OK if we could change Congress so she could express a more liberal side. I don't think it matters if it is Sanders, Hillary or Stein in office if we can't get more responsible people elected to Congress. Imagine a Congress that refuses to hold a hearing for a candidate for the Supreme Court! I never thought it would come to this. It's almost like a really big oligarchy. That's our biggest problem. And I think that frustration has added fuel to the pro-Trump fire. Congress has kept Obama from being an effective president for 8 years.
86JGL53
I check this site about one a week to see what the electoral situation looks like:
http://www.electionprojection.com/presidential-elections.php
Right now it is HRC 347 - trump 191
This is the only thing that counts.
http://www.electionprojection.com/presidential-elections.php
Right now it is HRC 347 - trump 191
This is the only thing that counts.
87lriley
#82--FWIW I would have preferred if Sanders had stuck it through the convention. It's what he said he would do. Truly I don't think the problem is really Sanders though. I think the problem is the Democratic party and the way the Democratic party does what it does. As soon as the FBI bowed out on Clinton there was no way that she was not going to get the nomination though and the primary lawsuits notwithstanding---the Democratic party was going to stay with HRC as their candidate. They didn't want Sanders and even overturning this primary or that--even California wasn't going to change a single super delegate of their rigged system. They were going to do cartwheels for her and the major media was going to give it the stamp of approval to make it look legit. Clinton is who they wanted and who they were determined to get from the get go and they've gotten what they want.
It's fucked. I have an alternative who is not going to win but........... both major political parties are bought and sold. I'd rather jettison the whole democrat/republican shtick anyway and see something else grow. I don't think this movement that Bernie led is over though---whether he's its spokesperson or not. I look at this as a setback--not something final. it's not going to be over as long as both these parties keep fucking people over and they can't help themselves from doing exactly that. Young people do not like Clinton and they're not liking either party and IMO that's a good thing.
It's fucked. I have an alternative who is not going to win but........... both major political parties are bought and sold. I'd rather jettison the whole democrat/republican shtick anyway and see something else grow. I don't think this movement that Bernie led is over though---whether he's its spokesperson or not. I look at this as a setback--not something final. it's not going to be over as long as both these parties keep fucking people over and they can't help themselves from doing exactly that. Young people do not like Clinton and they're not liking either party and IMO that's a good thing.
88davidgn
>87 lriley: Actually, Sanders has not conceded. He has endorsed, but not conceded. His delegates are still his, and that may conceivably make all the difference. He's down but not out. He has to play along in order to get to the convention at all --- it's a matter of the DNC rules. If you listen to the online chatter, there are still strenuous fundraising efforts going on to get all of Bernie's delegates to the convention. There's definitely going to be roll-call vote. There may be a floor contest and/or walkout. This is not over, as much as the media will portray it otherwise. And then, after the convention, Bernie is no longer obliged to toe any party line.
ETA: Read this, for instance. First link I could find that summarized Bernie's communications with delegates. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/bernie-has-not-conceded-will-have-lawye...
ETA: Read this, for instance. First link I could find that summarized Bernie's communications with delegates. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/bernie-has-not-conceded-will-have-lawye...
89artturnerjr
>86 JGL53:
That's exactly right. 270 is the magic number and, right now anyway, it's hard to see how Trump is going to get there.
ETA: See also:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-beco...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
That's exactly right. 270 is the magic number and, right now anyway, it's hard to see how Trump is going to get there.
ETA: See also:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-beco...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
90lriley
#88--if somehow Bernie is the Democratic nominee in November I would be more than happy to vote for him. Barring that it's Stein.
In his endorsement he tied Hillary to a lot of the hammered out democratic platform. She clapped through it all but quite a bit of it she didn't seem all that pleased with. Hearing tonight that she's talking about a constitutional amendment in her first 30 days to overturn Citizens United. That doesn't happen without Bernie's campaign. I can't vote for someone who supports TPP or fracking amongst other things so there's no way I'm voting for her. I don't trust her either but saying 30 days it seems like somethings going to happen at least with that.
In his endorsement he tied Hillary to a lot of the hammered out democratic platform. She clapped through it all but quite a bit of it she didn't seem all that pleased with. Hearing tonight that she's talking about a constitutional amendment in her first 30 days to overturn Citizens United. That doesn't happen without Bernie's campaign. I can't vote for someone who supports TPP or fracking amongst other things so there's no way I'm voting for her. I don't trust her either but saying 30 days it seems like somethings going to happen at least with that.
91proximity1
"In his endorsement he tied Hillary to a lot of the hammered out democratic platform."
Worthless. She has zero obligation to respect the party platform once she's in office.
" Hearing tonight that she's talking about a constitutional amendment in her first 30 days to overturn Citizens United."
Really? ! Did you somehow forget that she's a shameless liar?
They say, "Talk is cheap." Hillary's isn't even cheap. She'd say whatever she thought she had to say in order to get elected.
Worthless. She has zero obligation to respect the party platform once she's in office.
" Hearing tonight that she's talking about a constitutional amendment in her first 30 days to overturn Citizens United."
Really? ! Did you somehow forget that she's a shameless liar?
They say, "Talk is cheap." Hillary's isn't even cheap. She'd say whatever she thought she had to say in order to get elected.
92proximity1
( file holder)
94prosfilaes
>89 artturnerjr: 538 is now giving him about one-third chance, and as they point out, even 20% chances happen one time in five.
95proximity1
Presuming to state the probability of a victory for Trump or Clinton in the presidential race is akin to geomancy, tarot card-reading or any one of dozens of others superstitious fancies.
What in the world does any "percentage"-"probability" mean? These two have no electoral track-record competing with each other by which to judge.
You do understand that a "20% chance" means that the event "X" has occurred on average twenty times out of the past one-hundred, right? or, that in smaller samples, two times out of ten, right? With fewer than ten trials to work with, the probability's validity is virtually nil.
Take an example from real-life in which there really are data-sets of many thousands of instances to average: commercial airline flights' crash-rate.
You understand what it means that, taking this figure as a hypothetical example, there is one crash per ten-thousand commercial airline flights?
Does it mean in fact that the probability of any given flight, chosen at random, has a one-in-ten-thousand likelihood of crashing? Yes, presuming, of course that all flights are equally llikely to incur a crash. Suppose you're flying aboard an airline the safety record of which is 100%? And suppose next that this airline has been in continuous operation for forty years, flying a dozen flights per day? Is your flight's likelihood of crashing still one-in-ten-thousand? Now suppose the airline has flown seventy flights per day over the same period. Still 1 in 10,000? How about if the airline is four years old with the same safety record and twenty flights per day?
If Trump's chances of winning the election are 1 in 20, don't we need a database of 20 cases by which to make that averaged rate?
These numbers are essentially meaningless. You could put their names in a hat, draw out one name, announce that name as the winner in November and, assuming that each is his and her party's nominee, you'd have an even chance of turning out "right" even though your prediction was based on a random draw.
What in the world does any "percentage"-"probability" mean? These two have no electoral track-record competing with each other by which to judge.
You do understand that a "20% chance" means that the event "X" has occurred on average twenty times out of the past one-hundred, right? or, that in smaller samples, two times out of ten, right? With fewer than ten trials to work with, the probability's validity is virtually nil.
Take an example from real-life in which there really are data-sets of many thousands of instances to average: commercial airline flights' crash-rate.
You understand what it means that, taking this figure as a hypothetical example, there is one crash per ten-thousand commercial airline flights?
Does it mean in fact that the probability of any given flight, chosen at random, has a one-in-ten-thousand likelihood of crashing? Yes, presuming, of course that all flights are equally llikely to incur a crash. Suppose you're flying aboard an airline the safety record of which is 100%? And suppose next that this airline has been in continuous operation for forty years, flying a dozen flights per day? Is your flight's likelihood of crashing still one-in-ten-thousand? Now suppose the airline has flown seventy flights per day over the same period. Still 1 in 10,000? How about if the airline is four years old with the same safety record and twenty flights per day?
If Trump's chances of winning the election are 1 in 20, don't we need a database of 20 cases by which to make that averaged rate?
These numbers are essentially meaningless. You could put their names in a hat, draw out one name, announce that name as the winner in November and, assuming that each is his and her party's nominee, you'd have an even chance of turning out "right" even though your prediction was based on a random draw.
97artturnerjr
>95 proximity1:
While I agree that election results are difficult to predict, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the methodologies of Nate Silver et al. are as illogical as you indicate they are. Having said that, this election appears to me to be sui generis in modern American history, and therefore the results of same would seem to me to be more difficult to predict than they have been for previous elections.
While I agree that election results are difficult to predict, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the methodologies of Nate Silver et al. are as illogical as you indicate they are. Having said that, this election appears to me to be sui generis in modern American history, and therefore the results of same would seem to me to be more difficult to predict than they have been for previous elections.
98theoria
Mr Silver was correct about the 2012 Presidential election (as opposed to all other polling outfits). FiveThirtyEight was correct about the recently finished Democratic Primary as early as 2 July 2015 ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jim-webb-is-searching-for-a-bygone-democratic... ):
"Indeed, Sanders’s base of white liberals has become a larger percentage of white Democrats amid the decline of moderates. Last year was only the second time in the past 40 years in which they made up a larger share of the Democratic base than white moderates/conservatives. This explains a lot of the enthusiasm for Sanders in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, where whites make up more than 90 percent of the Democratic base.
It’s Clinton, however, who is best positioned to take advantage of the recent demographic shift in the Democratic Party. Clinton has picked up well over 60 percent of the vote among nonwhite Democrats in recent polls from CNN/ORC and Fox News. Sanders has languished in single digits among nonwhite voters. That’s very good news for Clinton given that nonwhites now make up nearly a majority of the party.
Indeed, nonwhite, specifically black, voters were the key to Obama’s primary victory in 2008. He was able to combine them with liberal whites to overcome Clinton’s initial lead. Unless someone like Sanders can increase his appeal to nonwhite voters, or Webb is able to combine moderate/conservative whites with nonwhite voters, Clinton is likely to march to the nomination, just as Obama did."
His "methodology" is as reliable as it comes today.
"Indeed, Sanders’s base of white liberals has become a larger percentage of white Democrats amid the decline of moderates. Last year was only the second time in the past 40 years in which they made up a larger share of the Democratic base than white moderates/conservatives. This explains a lot of the enthusiasm for Sanders in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, where whites make up more than 90 percent of the Democratic base.
It’s Clinton, however, who is best positioned to take advantage of the recent demographic shift in the Democratic Party. Clinton has picked up well over 60 percent of the vote among nonwhite Democrats in recent polls from CNN/ORC and Fox News. Sanders has languished in single digits among nonwhite voters. That’s very good news for Clinton given that nonwhites now make up nearly a majority of the party.
Indeed, nonwhite, specifically black, voters were the key to Obama’s primary victory in 2008. He was able to combine them with liberal whites to overcome Clinton’s initial lead. Unless someone like Sanders can increase his appeal to nonwhite voters, or Webb is able to combine moderate/conservative whites with nonwhite voters, Clinton is likely to march to the nomination, just as Obama did."
His "methodology" is as reliable as it comes today.
99prosfilaes
>95 proximity1: You do understand that a "20% chance" means that the event "X" has occurred on average twenty times out of the past one-hundred, right?
That's not what people mean when they say "20% chance". If someone says the odds of them getting a royal flush is 0.0032%, they're not saying they've got one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not saying that this deck has dealt one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not even saying that someone has actually measured a huge sample of poker hands, and came up with that number. They're saying there's a mathematical model for dealing poker hands that says that the odds of a royal flush being dealt to them is 0.0032%, and that model is believed to be an accurate model for the hand they're about to get dealt.
With fewer than ten trials to work with, the probability's validity is virtually nil.
If you have a fair sample of nine events, and 2 of them come up positive, your error margin (at the 95% level) is 27.06%.
You could put their names in a hat, draw out one name, announce that name as the winner in November and, assuming that each is his and her party's nominee, you'd have an even chance of turning out "right" even though your prediction was based on a random draw.
In other words, you don't believe what you just said. If I'm not mistaken, there are four candidates who are officially going to be on the ballot for all states. An independent candidate could still get on the ballot in enough states to win 369 electoral votes, and a write-in candidate could win every electoral vote but 39, so who knows how many names you should put in that bag? Despite a Trump-Clinton-etc. match-up never having occurred before, you're willing to say there's 100% chance that a major candidate will win.
That's not what people mean when they say "20% chance". If someone says the odds of them getting a royal flush is 0.0032%, they're not saying they've got one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not saying that this deck has dealt one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not even saying that someone has actually measured a huge sample of poker hands, and came up with that number. They're saying there's a mathematical model for dealing poker hands that says that the odds of a royal flush being dealt to them is 0.0032%, and that model is believed to be an accurate model for the hand they're about to get dealt.
With fewer than ten trials to work with, the probability's validity is virtually nil.
If you have a fair sample of nine events, and 2 of them come up positive, your error margin (at the 95% level) is 27.06%.
You could put their names in a hat, draw out one name, announce that name as the winner in November and, assuming that each is his and her party's nominee, you'd have an even chance of turning out "right" even though your prediction was based on a random draw.
In other words, you don't believe what you just said. If I'm not mistaken, there are four candidates who are officially going to be on the ballot for all states. An independent candidate could still get on the ballot in enough states to win 369 electoral votes, and a write-in candidate could win every electoral vote but 39, so who knows how many names you should put in that bag? Despite a Trump-Clinton-etc. match-up never having occurred before, you're willing to say there's 100% chance that a major candidate will win.
100proximity1
>99 prosfilaes: :
Your comparison is an utterly invalid one. The statistical probabilities of the distribution of randomly-dealt playing-cards are mathematically fixed. The "probability" of an electoral outcome has absolutely no such character about it.
..."so who knows how many names you should put in that bag? Despite a Trump-Clinton-etc. match-up never having occurred before, you're willing to say there's 100%."
I do : you should put two names in it--the Democratic party nominee's name and that of the Republican party.
There are statistics to go by if you're interested.
The probability is, of course, not "1" (or "100%") that the winner shall be either the Democratic party's or the Republican party's nominee since a probability of "1" is reserved for outcomes which are certain.
The probability of some number from 1 through 6 resulting from the single toss of a standard six-sided die with its faces numbered "1" through "6" is "1".
But, based on statistical averages, there is no need to put the names of any other party's candidates in the draw. That's as much due to the fact that the electoral system is neither free, fair nor democratic. It's a fraudulent, manipulated process as to the mathematics of probability.
... " That's not what people mean when they say "20% chance". If someone says the odds of them getting a royal flush is 0.0032%, they're not saying they've got one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not saying that this deck has dealt one royal flush in the last 30,940 games. They're not even saying that someone has actually measured a huge sample of poker hands, and came up with that number. They're saying there's a mathematical model for dealing poker hands that says that the odds of a royal flush being dealt to them is 0.0032%, and that model is believed to be an accurate model for the hand they're about to get dealt."
Your comparison is an utterly invalid one. The statistical probabilities of the distribution of randomly-dealt playing-cards are mathematically fixed. The "probability" of an electoral outcome has absolutely no such character about it.
..."so who knows how many names you should put in that bag? Despite a Trump-Clinton-etc. match-up never having occurred before, you're willing to say there's 100%."
I do : you should put two names in it--the Democratic party nominee's name and that of the Republican party.
There are statistics to go by if you're interested.
(Wikipedia)
... " Since the election of his (George Washington's) successor, John Adams, in 1796, all winners of U.S. presidential elections have represented one of two major parties. Third parties have taken second place only twice, in 1860 and 1912. The last time a third (independent) candidate achieved significant success (although still finishing in third place) was in 1992, and the last time a third-party candidate received any electoral votes not from faithless electors was in 1968."
The probability is, of course, not "1" (or "100%") that the winner shall be either the Democratic party's or the Republican party's nominee since a probability of "1" is reserved for outcomes which are certain.
The probability of some number from 1 through 6 resulting from the single toss of a standard six-sided die with its faces numbered "1" through "6" is "1".
But, based on statistical averages, there is no need to put the names of any other party's candidates in the draw. That's as much due to the fact that the electoral system is neither free, fair nor democratic. It's a fraudulent, manipulated process as to the mathematics of probability.
101proximity1
"His 'methodology' is as reliable as it comes today."
Yeah. That's just the trouble.
Yeah. That's just the trouble.
102prosfilaes
>100 proximity1: But, based on statistical averages, there is no need to put the names of any other party's candidates in the draw.
And based on statistical averages, a state polling 53-33 Clinton now, that has voted Democratic in every recent presidential election is virtually certain to vote for Clinton. With some complicated math, Silver gives Clinton a 97.4% chance of winning California.
I can't defend Silver's math in detail; I don't know that all the details have been published, and I haven't studied all of what has. But the idea that one can ask people who they're going to vote for in November and that that will give you a good impression of who will win in November seems entirely reasonable. Even at a crude level, http://www.270towin.com/ can be checked against polls and the reasonable position that Clinton is in a better position but Trump is not out of the running can be seen.
It's a fraudulent, manipulated process as to the mathematics of probability.
Meh. Whatever else the electoral system is, it is not fraudulent. The rules are clearly known and generally adhered to, and it wasn't put into place by deception.
And based on statistical averages, a state polling 53-33 Clinton now, that has voted Democratic in every recent presidential election is virtually certain to vote for Clinton. With some complicated math, Silver gives Clinton a 97.4% chance of winning California.
I can't defend Silver's math in detail; I don't know that all the details have been published, and I haven't studied all of what has. But the idea that one can ask people who they're going to vote for in November and that that will give you a good impression of who will win in November seems entirely reasonable. Even at a crude level, http://www.270towin.com/ can be checked against polls and the reasonable position that Clinton is in a better position but Trump is not out of the running can be seen.
It's a fraudulent, manipulated process as to the mathematics of probability.
Meh. Whatever else the electoral system is, it is not fraudulent. The rules are clearly known and generally adhered to, and it wasn't put into place by deception.
103John5918
>102 prosfilaes:
I was listening on BBC World Service yesterday to a US pollster who has usually been proved right. I don't understand all the maths, but he was saying that as well as asking people how they will vote in November, they then compare the findings with the accuracy of polls made at the same stage in the campaign in previous elections, so they get some sense of how accurate a poll in a certain location in July is likely to be compared to the actual results in November. Not perfect, not 100% accurate, but it has logic and maths behind it and it is far from random guessing.
I was listening on BBC World Service yesterday to a US pollster who has usually been proved right. I don't understand all the maths, but he was saying that as well as asking people how they will vote in November, they then compare the findings with the accuracy of polls made at the same stage in the campaign in previous elections, so they get some sense of how accurate a poll in a certain location in July is likely to be compared to the actual results in November. Not perfect, not 100% accurate, but it has logic and maths behind it and it is far from random guessing.
104proximity1
>102 prosfilaes:
California presidential election results :
1952 (R); 1956 (R); 1960 (r); 1964 (D); 1968 (R); 1972 (R);
1976 (r); 1980 (R); 1984 (R) ; 1988 (R) ; 1992 (D) ; 1996 (D) ;
2000 (d) ; 2004 (d) ; 2008 (D) ; 2012 (D)
Since 1948 (D -Truman), California has voted nine times for the Republican party's nominee and in those elections, the R won nationally seven of the nine times; and seven times for the Democratic party's nominee and in those elections, the D won nationally five of the seven times.
- ------------------------------
1852 (D -Pierce / won) ; 1856 (D - Buchanan /won) ;
1860 (R -Lincoln / w); 1864 (R - Lincoln /w); 1868 (R-Grant / w) ; 1872 (R - Grant / w) ; 1876 (R- Hayes / w); 1880 (d-Hancock / lost); 1884 (r-Blaine / lost); 1888 (R-Harrison / won) ; 1892 (D - Cleveland / won) ; 1896 (R-McKinley / won) ; 1900 (R-McKinley / won) ;1904 (R- Theodore Roosevelt / won) ;1908 (R - Taft / won); 1912*(progressive party - Theodore Roosevelt / lost ) ; 1916 ( D - Wilson / won) ; 1920 (R - Harding / won) ; 1924 ( R - Coolidge / won) ; 1928 (R - Hoover / won) ; 1932 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won) ; 1936 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won) ; 1940 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won)
; 1944 ( D - Roosevelt / Truman) ; 1948 ( D - Truman ) ;
---------
(*) 1912's election was a four-way race; Woodrow Wilson won a plurality defeating his next nearest opponents (in order) T. Roosevelt (p.p.), Howard Taft (r) and Eugene Debs (socialist).
R : 13 won nationally
r : 1 lost nationally
D : 9 won nationally
d : 1 lost nationally
---------------------------
In total, 1852 - 2012
R : 22
r : 3
Total Republicans : 25
D : 14
d : 3
Total Democrats : 17
United States presidential elections in California
-------
Your absurd attempt to compare the fixed odds of playing-cards' hands dealt randomly with the virtually incalculable variables involved in a contemporary U.S. presidential election stands refuted and you made no comment on that. So my previous point stands: attempts to assign a statistically-sound numerical value to the probability of a U.S. presidential candidate's winning the election are sheer guesswork. When they are correct, their authors attribute this to their predictive prowess. When they are incorrect, we always hear the same excuses: "this isn't an exact science, "-- which is true: it's not any kind of science, it's guesswork; and, "sometimes we get it wrong," --which is also true and that's the preferred way to say it rather than the reverse, which is equally valid: "sometimes we get it right." But these soothsayers don't like to put it that way.
California presidential election results :
1952 (R); 1956 (R); 1960 (r); 1964 (D); 1968 (R); 1972 (R);
1976 (r); 1980 (R); 1984 (R) ; 1988 (R) ; 1992 (D) ; 1996 (D) ;
2000 (d) ; 2004 (d) ; 2008 (D) ; 2012 (D)
Since 1948 (D -Truman), California has voted nine times for the Republican party's nominee and in those elections, the R won nationally seven of the nine times; and seven times for the Democratic party's nominee and in those elections, the D won nationally five of the seven times.
- ------------------------------
1852 (D -Pierce / won) ; 1856 (D - Buchanan /won) ;
1860 (R -Lincoln / w); 1864 (R - Lincoln /w); 1868 (R-Grant / w) ; 1872 (R - Grant / w) ; 1876 (R- Hayes / w); 1880 (d-Hancock / lost); 1884 (r-Blaine / lost); 1888 (R-Harrison / won) ; 1892 (D - Cleveland / won) ; 1896 (R-McKinley / won) ; 1900 (R-McKinley / won) ;1904 (R- Theodore Roosevelt / won) ;1908 (R - Taft / won); 1912*(progressive party - Theodore Roosevelt / lost ) ; 1916 ( D - Wilson / won) ; 1920 (R - Harding / won) ; 1924 ( R - Coolidge / won) ; 1928 (R - Hoover / won) ; 1932 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won) ; 1936 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won) ; 1940 (D - F.D. Roosevelt / won)
; 1944 ( D - Roosevelt / Truman) ; 1948 ( D - Truman ) ;
---------
(*) 1912's election was a four-way race; Woodrow Wilson won a plurality defeating his next nearest opponents (in order) T. Roosevelt (p.p.), Howard Taft (r) and Eugene Debs (socialist).
R : 13 won nationally
r : 1 lost nationally
D : 9 won nationally
d : 1 lost nationally
---------------------------
In total, 1852 - 2012
R : 22
r : 3
Total Republicans : 25
D : 14
d : 3
Total Democrats : 17
United States presidential elections in California
-------
Your absurd attempt to compare the fixed odds of playing-cards' hands dealt randomly with the virtually incalculable variables involved in a contemporary U.S. presidential election stands refuted and you made no comment on that. So my previous point stands: attempts to assign a statistically-sound numerical value to the probability of a U.S. presidential candidate's winning the election are sheer guesswork. When they are correct, their authors attribute this to their predictive prowess. When they are incorrect, we always hear the same excuses: "this isn't an exact science, "-- which is true: it's not any kind of science, it's guesswork; and, "sometimes we get it wrong," --which is also true and that's the preferred way to say it rather than the reverse, which is equally valid: "sometimes we get it right." But these soothsayers don't like to put it that way.
105artturnerjr
>104 proximity1:
IOW, the last time a Republican presidential nominee won in California was 1988, which was twenty-eight years ago. Haven't checked, but it's probably been at least that long if not longer since a GOP nominee has Oregon and Washington - it's called the Left Coast for a reason.
Clinton will win in California in November. I'd bet money on it.
IOW, the last time a Republican presidential nominee won in California was 1988, which was twenty-eight years ago. Haven't checked, but it's probably been at least that long if not longer since a GOP nominee has Oregon and Washington - it's called the Left Coast for a reason.
Clinton will win in California in November. I'd bet money on it.
106proximity1
>105 artturnerjr:
Right--however, while California voted for a Democrat in all of the last six presidential elections, twice in those six elections the Democratic party choice of California's voters didn't win the election nationally.
Republicans who won both California _and_ the national race outnumbered Democrats by 22 to 14 -- about a third more Rs as Ds.
Right--however, while California voted for a Democrat in all of the last six presidential elections, twice in those six elections the Democratic party choice of California's voters didn't win the election nationally.
Republicans who won both California _and_ the national race outnumbered Democrats by 22 to 14 -- about a third more Rs as Ds.
107proximity1
A - A - B -B - B - B - B - A - B - B - A - B - B - B - B - C - A - B -
B - B - A - A - A - A - A - B - B - B - A - A - B - B - B - B - B - B
A - A - A - A - A - A.
Think that HiSTORY guarantees Hillary Clinton's election in California and the nation?
Okay, then try reading the series from left to right starting at the top left, and, examining the series, spot the pattern(s) --if any--and predict the next six letters.
This should be easy and obvious to you. Be sure to explain how you reason your answer.
108RickHarsch
>107 proximity1: You have a great many interesting notions, but your presentation is so often that of a tight-assed academic, not that you are a tight-ass, but you come across in a way that leaves one without the will to give your words a thought.
109lriley
This Michael Howard should write more articles:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/sadism-masochism-and-lesser-evili...
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/sadism-masochism-and-lesser-evili...
110prosfilaes
>104 proximity1: Your absurd attempt to compare the fixed odds of playing-cards' hands dealt randomly with the virtually incalculable variables involved in a contemporary U.S. presidential election
Actually, it was a response to "You do understand that a "20% chance" means that the event "X" has occurred on average twenty times out of the past one-hundred, right?" which is not usually what 20% chance means.
And actually the odds of poker hands are virtually incalculable. They're all dependent on the order the cards were before the shuffling, how many times they were shuffled, how they were shuffled, etc. etc. We have a mathematical model that abstracts away all of the physical details, but it's a model and not entirely accurate.
attempts to assign a statistically-sound numerical value to the probability of a U.S. presidential candidate's winning the election are sheer guesswork.
13/57th of American presidencies have been elected under neither the Republican ticket or the Democratic ticket. Does the fact you're calling the election for one of the two parties count as sheer guesswork?
On the day before the 2012 election, Nate Silver successfully called all electoral votes as to who they would go to. The odds you could do that by pulling names out of a bag is 1 in 9,007,199,254,740,992, or one in nine quadrillion. If it's sheer guesswork, he's the most ridiculously lucky man in the world, and then relying on his guesses is actually quite wise. We've got four months before the election, but it's not sheer guesswork.
When they are incorrect, we always hear the same excuses: "this isn't an exact science, "
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-... Actually he said we screwed up and this is how we'll improve.
>107 proximity1: Think that HiSTORY guarantees Hillary Clinton's election in California and the nation?
I think that numerous polls showing between a 10 and 30 point lead for a presidential candidate 100 days before the election in a state nearly guarantees that candidate's election in that state. Again, cf. Nate Silver successfully calling all of the electoral votes, an act inconcievable by guesswork. There's also recency effect; I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that if a party won the last three elections in a state, they're a pretty good bet for the next.
I don't think either I or artturnerjr have argued that Clinton's election overall is guaranteed, but we think she's got better odds than Trump.
Again, I don't think you get to look at the data and claim that a party nominee will win and act like you're doing anything fundamentally different from what we're doing.
Actually, it was a response to "You do understand that a "20% chance" means that the event "X" has occurred on average twenty times out of the past one-hundred, right?" which is not usually what 20% chance means.
And actually the odds of poker hands are virtually incalculable. They're all dependent on the order the cards were before the shuffling, how many times they were shuffled, how they were shuffled, etc. etc. We have a mathematical model that abstracts away all of the physical details, but it's a model and not entirely accurate.
attempts to assign a statistically-sound numerical value to the probability of a U.S. presidential candidate's winning the election are sheer guesswork.
13/57th of American presidencies have been elected under neither the Republican ticket or the Democratic ticket. Does the fact you're calling the election for one of the two parties count as sheer guesswork?
On the day before the 2012 election, Nate Silver successfully called all electoral votes as to who they would go to. The odds you could do that by pulling names out of a bag is 1 in 9,007,199,254,740,992, or one in nine quadrillion. If it's sheer guesswork, he's the most ridiculously lucky man in the world, and then relying on his guesses is actually quite wise. We've got four months before the election, but it's not sheer guesswork.
When they are incorrect, we always hear the same excuses: "this isn't an exact science, "
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-... Actually he said we screwed up and this is how we'll improve.
>107 proximity1: Think that HiSTORY guarantees Hillary Clinton's election in California and the nation?
I think that numerous polls showing between a 10 and 30 point lead for a presidential candidate 100 days before the election in a state nearly guarantees that candidate's election in that state. Again, cf. Nate Silver successfully calling all of the electoral votes, an act inconcievable by guesswork. There's also recency effect; I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that if a party won the last three elections in a state, they're a pretty good bet for the next.
I don't think either I or artturnerjr have argued that Clinton's election overall is guaranteed, but we think she's got better odds than Trump.
Again, I don't think you get to look at the data and claim that a party nominee will win and act like you're doing anything fundamentally different from what we're doing.
111JGL53
There are (at least) two types of fucktarded people in America who can NEVER be reasoned with - and I mean NEVER:
1. Those who believe Jesus is Lord, the KJV is the inerrant word of god, and all non-christians are doomed to eternal hellfire - no exceptions. Period. The End. Case closed. My mind is made up. I have spoken.
and
2. Those who believe HRC is the lesser of evils and that means all decent people MUST vote for her to stop trump - thus a vote for Stein or Johnson, or a write-in for Sanders, or the refusal to vote, are all a vote for trump. Period. The End. Case closed. My mind is made up. I have spoken.
There is absolutely no reasoning with either fucktarded group. No, seriously, there just isn't.
My conclusion? - It is best to just ignore both groups, for your own sanity's sake.
1. Those who believe Jesus is Lord, the KJV is the inerrant word of god, and all non-christians are doomed to eternal hellfire - no exceptions. Period. The End. Case closed. My mind is made up. I have spoken.
and
2. Those who believe HRC is the lesser of evils and that means all decent people MUST vote for her to stop trump - thus a vote for Stein or Johnson, or a write-in for Sanders, or the refusal to vote, are all a vote for trump. Period. The End. Case closed. My mind is made up. I have spoken.
There is absolutely no reasoning with either fucktarded group. No, seriously, there just isn't.
My conclusion? - It is best to just ignore both groups, for your own sanity's sake.
112RickHarsch
>111 JGL53: Jungly: The key to your post is the parenthetical. You have indeed spoken, and now you must work to detect the other groups as well.
113krazy4katz
>111 JGL53: Too simplistic. What are YOU going to do? Bravely go down with the ship by not voting? Someone has to run the country and it would be nice if it were us. I know that's hard but that's what we have to do. Voting for Congresspeople matters more!
114JGL53
> 113
Good point - IF my one vote would tell the tale. But it will not . Or if my influence were so great that enough people would ape me and thus turn the tide the other way. But such is not going to happen.
So, you have no point.
Please join RickHarsch in the barrel.
Good point - IF my one vote would tell the tale. But it will not . Or if my influence were so great that enough people would ape me and thus turn the tide the other way. But such is not going to happen.
So, you have no point.
Please join RickHarsch in the barrel.
115krazy4katz
I can't. He doesn't like academics.
116theoria
>112 RickHarsch: Shout out to Slovenia from Melania Trump!
117RickHarsch
>116 theoria: Hvala. Check out google earth, lovely town on the Sava if I'm not wrong, called Sevnica.
>114 JGL53: Why do I have to be in the barrel--I'm on your side.
et fix
>114 JGL53: Why do I have to be in the barrel--I'm on your side.
et fix
118RickHarsch
>115 krazy4katz: some of my best friends are dead academics
119RickHarsch
Re the jungly point: I have not voted since 1980 except in one primary. I have not found a single candidate worth voting for. I get the Clinton voters, and perhaps if she has really been persuaded towards Sanders a few good things will happen. But I doubt it. I hope she at least manages to bring the abortion debate to a halt at late 70s mentality. I doubt she will alter the tax structure. Anyway, the point is that if the US electoral system keeps throwing up (pun appreciated) politicians who range narrowly between Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan I have nothing to vote for. And I certainly won't vote for to vote against.
121krazy4katz
Also Flynn: Obama hid the evil done by Bin Laden. What's that about? Dead men tell no tales?
122theoria
>120 davidgn:
Sky Marshal Dienes: We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*! (Starship Troopers film).
>117 RickHarsch: It looks nice. But she fell for Mr Trump's kindness and had to leave ...
Sky Marshal Dienes: We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*! (Starship Troopers film).
>117 RickHarsch: It looks nice. But she fell for Mr Trump's kindness and had to leave ...
124artturnerjr
My vote for jaw-dropper of the evening:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/us/politics/steve-king-nonwhite-subgroups.html...
>122 theoria:
>123 timspalding:
Three cheers for Starship Troopers (movie, not book)! An all-time favorite of mine. 8)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/us/politics/steve-king-nonwhite-subgroups.html...
>122 theoria:
>123 timspalding:
Three cheers for Starship Troopers (movie, not book)! An all-time favorite of mine. 8)
125timspalding
Ow.
It sure looks like Melania Trump copied her speech from Michelle Obama
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12221566/melania-trump-michelle-obama
And this is just funny.
Did Melania Trump include a Rickroll in the middle of her convention speech?
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12221654/melania-trump-rickroll
movie, not book
The book's good in a different way.
It sure looks like Melania Trump copied her speech from Michelle Obama
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12221566/melania-trump-michelle-obama
And this is just funny.
Did Melania Trump include a Rickroll in the middle of her convention speech?
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12221654/melania-trump-rickroll
movie, not book
The book's good in a different way.
126davidgn
>125 timspalding:
On both scores: it's 2008 all over again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL-hNMJvcyI
On both scores: it's 2008 all over again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL-hNMJvcyI
127artturnerjr
>125 timspalding:
The book has its moments. It's Robert Heinlein in full-on provocateur mode, so yeah, if that's your thing, it's manna from heaven. It's just hard for me to get behind a novel that advocates for corporal punishment for children. :/
The film, OTOH, is an underacknowledged masterpiece (I say that as a total Paul Verhoeven fanboy, however, so take that with a grain of salt).
The book has its moments. It's Robert Heinlein in full-on provocateur mode, so yeah, if that's your thing, it's manna from heaven. It's just hard for me to get behind a novel that advocates for corporal punishment for children. :/
The film, OTOH, is an underacknowledged masterpiece (I say that as a total Paul Verhoeven fanboy, however, so take that with a grain of salt).
128timspalding
>127 artturnerjr:
The movie had a tough task, in being both a big, exciting, involving special-effects action blockbuster, and a critical commentary on violence, fascism, America—and Heinlein. It works if you step back from it, and get the joke. But it didn't work in original context.
The movie had a tough task, in being both a big, exciting, involving special-effects action blockbuster, and a critical commentary on violence, fascism, America—and Heinlein. It works if you step back from it, and get the joke. But it didn't work in original context.
129proximity1
>110 prosfilaes:
There's a difference of course between completely random guesses and informed guesswork. But they remain guesswork all the same. So informed guesses may, depending on the quality of the data and the reasoning, yes, have a much better chance of being right.
But this, from you, is more of your signature disingenuous straw man stuff--as no one here ever suggested that pure random guesswork and so-called educated-guesses were comparable, yet you cite a statistical example of how far they're separated in one of Silver's "feats," as though that had something useful to add:
That's not just fucking bullshit, it's disgustingly dishonest fucking bullshit. I'd be ashamed to have offered that shit in an online discussion.
This case is a very good example of why I say you just do not know how to reason effectively and why ordinarily I don't bother reading, let alone replying to, your comments.
There's a difference of course between completely random guesses and informed guesswork. But they remain guesswork all the same. So informed guesses may, depending on the quality of the data and the reasoning, yes, have a much better chance of being right.
But this, from you, is more of your signature disingenuous straw man stuff--as no one here ever suggested that pure random guesswork and so-called educated-guesses were comparable, yet you cite a statistical example of how far they're separated in one of Silver's "feats," as though that had something useful to add:
"On the day before the 2012 election, Nate Silver successfully called all electoral votes as to who they would go to. The odds you could do that by pulling names out of a bag is 1 in 9,007,199,254,740,992, or one in nine quadrillion. If it's sheer guesswork, he's the most ridiculously lucky man in the world, and then relying on his guesses is actually quite wise. We've got four months before the election, but it's not sheer guesswork."
That's not just fucking bullshit, it's disgustingly dishonest fucking bullshit. I'd be ashamed to have offered that shit in an online discussion.
This case is a very good example of why I say you just do not know how to reason effectively and why ordinarily I don't bother reading, let alone replying to, your comments.
130John5918
>128 timspalding:
A very enjoyable film as a film, but I hope it was intended as a warning against the militaristic political system it espoused rather than an endorsement of it. I haven't read the book yet.
A very enjoyable film as a film, but I hope it was intended as a warning against the militaristic political system it espoused rather than an endorsement of it. I haven't read the book yet.
132margd
>125 timspalding: Plegiarism or no, I bet there will be times President HRC will wish for a first spouse more like Melania Trump than Bill Clinton. I doubt that he will be able to behave himself for four whole years, and she'll need to spend some energy on damage control? (Won't be dull!) Doubtless he'll give a compelling, rip roarin' speech at Dem convention, though!
(Other R convention speakers: Minor TV folks? Rick Perry failure to mention candidate's name?? I think that's about when I wandered off with a book. ETA: or maybe it was after exploitative exhibition of Benghazi mom's grief and anger?)
(Other R convention speakers: Minor TV folks? Rick Perry failure to mention candidate's name?? I think that's about when I wandered off with a book. ETA: or maybe it was after exploitative exhibition of Benghazi mom's grief and anger?)
133LolaWalser
>130 John5918:
The book is more or less the usual period sci-fi junk, but it's an ode to fascism à la Americaine, complete with leaden ideological red-baiting (IIRC, Marx gets name-checked for a fool etc.) so fans abound. Predictable fans anyway.
I never saw the movie. In the book, the enemy, in a ridiculous and ominous simplification, is an insect-like species whose "side of the story" we never see--they have no individuality, no culture, no language, and no communication is ever established between them and the humans.
Doesn't take much to notice this is how certain Americans like seeing "the other". They also like killing such "insects" (another great popular success, Orson Scott Card's Ender's game, called its own version--in a singularly unfortunate coincidence, no doubt--"buggers") exactly in the fashion shown in the book--total annihilation, no questions asked, the more remote, i.e. dehumanised the target, the better.
It's the mentality of combating a vermin infestation. The military no doubt finds that mindset useful. Human civilisation on the whole, probably not.
The book is more or less the usual period sci-fi junk, but it's an ode to fascism à la Americaine, complete with leaden ideological red-baiting (IIRC, Marx gets name-checked for a fool etc.) so fans abound. Predictable fans anyway.
I never saw the movie. In the book, the enemy, in a ridiculous and ominous simplification, is an insect-like species whose "side of the story" we never see--they have no individuality, no culture, no language, and no communication is ever established between them and the humans.
Doesn't take much to notice this is how certain Americans like seeing "the other". They also like killing such "insects" (another great popular success, Orson Scott Card's Ender's game, called its own version--in a singularly unfortunate coincidence, no doubt--"buggers") exactly in the fashion shown in the book--total annihilation, no questions asked, the more remote, i.e. dehumanised the target, the better.
It's the mentality of combating a vermin infestation. The military no doubt finds that mindset useful. Human civilisation on the whole, probably not.
134LolaWalser
>124 artturnerjr:
It's one ignorant piece of racist shit after another in the GOP these days, isn't it...
It's one ignorant piece of racist shit after another in the GOP these days, isn't it...
In 2013, he attracted criticism after saying that for every child of illegal immigrants “who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” In June, he moved to block an effort to put Harriet Tubman, the abolitionist, on the $20 bill.
135jjwilson61
>129 proximity1: There's a difference of course between completely random guesses and informed guesswork. But they remain guesswork all the same.
Dude, it's all guesswork. You don't really know anything, outside of pure mathematics, with absolute certainty. So that line your trying to draw has absolutely no validity.
Dude, it's all guesswork. You don't really know anything, outside of pure mathematics, with absolute certainty. So that line your trying to draw has absolutely no validity.
136justifiedsinner
>125 timspalding: Could have been worse, at least she didn't copy from HRC's 1996 speech.
And at least the young singer who opened the convention with the National Anthem didn't follow up with a rendition of 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me".
And at least the young singer who opened the convention with the National Anthem didn't follow up with a rendition of 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me".
137proximity1
Yesterday's poll at Real Clear Politics on
The Country's Direction: (18/07/2016)
Right direction : 22 %
Wrong track. ...: 69 %
---------------------
"Who you gonna call?" ®
Hillary "Status quo" Clinton?
138artturnerjr
>128 timspalding:
Exactly. The film is a parody of kick-ass SF action blockbusters, that, paradoxically, manages to itself be a kick-ass SF action blockbuster - that's its genius. It's a very difficult thing to pull off - if you'll forgive the semi-esoteric reference, it does for its genre what Soundgarden's "Big Dumb Sex" (https://youtu.be/E3mIDePAUKQ) did for heavy metal. On the literary side, it's what Norman Spinrad tried to do with The Iron Dream and didn't quite manage.
>132 margd:
Minor TV folks?
I know, right? Scott Baio? Seriously, that's the best you guys can do? *Sigh* The GOP just doesn't know how to do the whole celeb endorsement thing right.
>133 LolaWalser:
You need to see the movie, Lola. You will totally get it. :)
I always felt like Ender's Game was written as a sort of response to Starship Troopers, as was Joe Haldeman's The Forever War. It's like this whole little sub-genre of military SF.
>134 LolaWalser:
King is a piece of shit - and he has the same name as one of my favorite writers, which makes me hate him that much more. I really wish the usually-great Chris Hayes had handled that better ("Where's your white robe, Rep. King? Forget it at the cleaners?") (To be fair, apparently he does, too.)
In any other year, King's remark would have surprised me. But, like you said, this year it's just par for the course. Dog-whistle racism appears to be a thing of the past for the GOP - apparently, in the wake of Trump, people feel comfortable just spewing out whatever vile crap comes into their heads and it's okay, or it's applauded. :/
Exactly. The film is a parody of kick-ass SF action blockbusters, that, paradoxically, manages to itself be a kick-ass SF action blockbuster - that's its genius. It's a very difficult thing to pull off - if you'll forgive the semi-esoteric reference, it does for its genre what Soundgarden's "Big Dumb Sex" (https://youtu.be/E3mIDePAUKQ) did for heavy metal. On the literary side, it's what Norman Spinrad tried to do with The Iron Dream and didn't quite manage.
>132 margd:
Minor TV folks?
I know, right? Scott Baio? Seriously, that's the best you guys can do? *Sigh* The GOP just doesn't know how to do the whole celeb endorsement thing right.
>133 LolaWalser:
You need to see the movie, Lola. You will totally get it. :)
I always felt like Ender's Game was written as a sort of response to Starship Troopers, as was Joe Haldeman's The Forever War. It's like this whole little sub-genre of military SF.
>134 LolaWalser:
King is a piece of shit - and he has the same name as one of my favorite writers, which makes me hate him that much more. I really wish the usually-great Chris Hayes had handled that better ("Where's your white robe, Rep. King? Forget it at the cleaners?") (To be fair, apparently he does, too.)
In any other year, King's remark would have surprised me. But, like you said, this year it's just par for the course. Dog-whistle racism appears to be a thing of the past for the GOP - apparently, in the wake of Trump, people feel comfortable just spewing out whatever vile crap comes into their heads and it's okay, or it's applauded. :/
139timspalding
The book is more or less the usual period sci-fi junk, but it's an ode to fascism à la Americaine, complete with leaden ideological red-baiting (IIRC, Marx gets name-checked for a fool etc.) so fans abound. Predictable fans anyway.
Yeah, you underestimate people. One does not need to unite oneself to Heinlein's world view to enjoy it, any more than one must embrace the world views of Tolstoy, Dante or Homer to enjoy them. (Yes, Heinlein is not of the same quality!) In my experience, most Heinlein fans are his ideological fans at all; they get it. His detractors tend to be the predictable ideologues. Personally, I don't think he's that great--I'm happy to have read a few of his books, but I'm not anxious to read more. But his ideology is not the problem.
This is perhaps why we had that ridiculous thread about not reading any science fiction written before the Clinton Administration.
Doesn't take much to notice this is how certain Americans like seeing "the other". They also like killing such "insects" (another great popular success, Orson Scott Card's Ender's game, called its own version--in a singularly unfortunate coincidence, no doubt--"buggers") exactly in the fashion shown in the book--total annihilation, no questions asked, the more remote, i.e. dehumanised the target, the better.
You would love the movie. Verhoven is very much having the same thoughts. It's a tricky balance to walk in terms of tone--the heroes are the villains for just the reasons you cite. When, in the final scene, a character yells "they're AFRAID!" and everyone cheers, you know, or should know if you groked what he's doing, you shouldn't be cheering, but the reverse. But my guess is that many watchers cheered along with it, and Verhoven, in making a fancy blockbuster with attractive characters in perilous situations, has encouraged that response too.
that's its genius. It's a very difficult thing to pull off
I'm not convinced he pulls it off. But one applauds a man who juggles knives 3/4 of the way across a tightrope, even if he reaches the end missing a digit.
One of my favorite touches was that the first third takes in Buenos Aires, but no one speaks Spanish, there are no recognizable South American cultural aspects, and the entire sub-genre at play is that of militarized Beverly Hills 90210.
I always felt like Ender's Game was written as a sort of response to Starship Troopers, as was Joe Haldeman's The Forever War. It's like this whole little sub-genre of military SF.
The former is fantastic, the latter not at all. Ender's Game presents some interesting ideological issues, and more when one knows about the author. The movie… the movie was a dumb joke.
Yeah, you underestimate people. One does not need to unite oneself to Heinlein's world view to enjoy it, any more than one must embrace the world views of Tolstoy, Dante or Homer to enjoy them. (Yes, Heinlein is not of the same quality!) In my experience, most Heinlein fans are his ideological fans at all; they get it. His detractors tend to be the predictable ideologues. Personally, I don't think he's that great--I'm happy to have read a few of his books, but I'm not anxious to read more. But his ideology is not the problem.
This is perhaps why we had that ridiculous thread about not reading any science fiction written before the Clinton Administration.
Doesn't take much to notice this is how certain Americans like seeing "the other". They also like killing such "insects" (another great popular success, Orson Scott Card's Ender's game, called its own version--in a singularly unfortunate coincidence, no doubt--"buggers") exactly in the fashion shown in the book--total annihilation, no questions asked, the more remote, i.e. dehumanised the target, the better.
You would love the movie. Verhoven is very much having the same thoughts. It's a tricky balance to walk in terms of tone--the heroes are the villains for just the reasons you cite. When, in the final scene, a character yells "they're AFRAID!" and everyone cheers, you know, or should know if you groked what he's doing, you shouldn't be cheering, but the reverse. But my guess is that many watchers cheered along with it, and Verhoven, in making a fancy blockbuster with attractive characters in perilous situations, has encouraged that response too.
that's its genius. It's a very difficult thing to pull off
I'm not convinced he pulls it off. But one applauds a man who juggles knives 3/4 of the way across a tightrope, even if he reaches the end missing a digit.
One of my favorite touches was that the first third takes in Buenos Aires, but no one speaks Spanish, there are no recognizable South American cultural aspects, and the entire sub-genre at play is that of militarized Beverly Hills 90210.
I always felt like Ender's Game was written as a sort of response to Starship Troopers, as was Joe Haldeman's The Forever War. It's like this whole little sub-genre of military SF.
The former is fantastic, the latter not at all. Ender's Game presents some interesting ideological issues, and more when one knows about the author. The movie… the movie was a dumb joke.
140prosfilaes
>129 proximity1: no one here ever suggested that pure random guesswork and so-called educated-guesses were comparable
>95 proximity1: Presuming to state the probability of a victory for Trump or Clinton in the presidential race is akin to geomancy, tarot card-reading or any one of dozens of others superstitious fancies.
>95 proximity1: Presuming to state the probability of a victory for Trump or Clinton in the presidential race is akin to geomancy, tarot card-reading or any one of dozens of others superstitious fancies.
141prosfilaes
>139 timspalding: One does not need to unite oneself to Heinlein's world view to enjoy it, any more than one must embrace the world views of Tolstoy, Dante or Homer to enjoy them.
There's an interesting pair of stories back-to-back in The Mammoth Book of Vintage Science Fiction: Short Novels of the 1950s; The Oceans Are Wide, a story whose politics seem to be autocratic, and And Then There Were None, whose politics are overtly, um, anarcho-libertarian(?). And they both manage to be interesting stories despite their politics.
I'd note that several translators of Dante have had great problems with his religious beliefs, and felt compelled to annotate deeply their editions of his works.
There's an interesting pair of stories back-to-back in The Mammoth Book of Vintage Science Fiction: Short Novels of the 1950s; The Oceans Are Wide, a story whose politics seem to be autocratic, and And Then There Were None, whose politics are overtly, um, anarcho-libertarian(?). And they both manage to be interesting stories despite their politics.
I'd note that several translators of Dante have had great problems with his religious beliefs, and felt compelled to annotate deeply their editions of his works.
142timspalding
It's official: Trump is the nominee.
SOS!
My mom and I turned to each other to say the same thing--"I'm glad dad didn't live to see THIS!"
SOS!
My mom and I turned to each other to say the same thing--"I'm glad dad didn't live to see THIS!"
143RickHarsch
>142 timspalding: SOS? Statesman of Super-race?
144prosfilaes
I've forked a subthread on the question of whether or not they had the right to divert Trump's nomination instead of making it official. http://www.librarything.com/topic/227338
145theoria
The Republican Convention gets more exciting by the moment. Tonight Ben Carson claimed that Hillary Clinton is a friend of Lucifer, shouted "In inferno nulla est redemptio," and walked off while house band played "Into the Coven."
147artturnerjr
>142 timspalding:
SOS!
Help is on the way, Tim!
(Or, Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert, "Stephen Colbert" (Look out, bad guys! He's got Captain America's shield!), Jon Stewart, and the spit-take raised to an art form):
https://youtu.be/-GFVKMTJUos
SOS!
Help is on the way, Tim!
(Or, Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert, "Stephen Colbert" (Look out, bad guys! He's got Captain America's shield!), Jon Stewart, and the spit-take raised to an art form):
https://youtu.be/-GFVKMTJUos
148RickHarsch
>145 theoria: You're joking, of course.
149davidgn
>148 RickHarsch: Apparently not. http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-invokes-saul-alinsky-and-lucifer-in-bo...
Carson went off prompter again...
Carson went off prompter again...
150theoria
>148 RickHarsch: OK it's not the full truth. But it could have been!
151RickHarsch
>150 theoria: I have since investigated and it turns out to have represented the truth well enough.
152davidgn
Meanwhile: Charlotte Pence: Vampire or Ghost?
153prosfilaes
>148 RickHarsch: So Alinsky wrote "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer." I think the US can probably stand a president who knew and was even friends with an agnostic Jew who alluded to Lucifer in a book about rebellion.
154RickHarsch
>153 prosfilaes: Thanks. I actually got that pretty quick last night, but thanks for making sure. I think the US could stand a president with a bit more rebellion as well...La Follette, say...Sanders?...Green Party?... but sure, given the old as is...Clinton is safer for the universe
156jjwilson61
Trump/Pence has too few syllables to win in November!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/trump-pence-name-length-too-short...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/trump-pence-name-length-too-short...
157justifiedsinner
Watching Convention interspersed with episodes of The Man in the High Castle - all in all a very creepy experience.
158davidgn
>157 justifiedsinner: You mean the Amazon-produced one? I read this and decided not to bother.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/the-further-nullification-of-philip-k-dic...
Have you got anything redeeming to say about it?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/the-further-nullification-of-philip-k-dic...
Have you got anything redeeming to say about it?
159prosfilaes
The New York Times goes 75/25 on Clinton/Trump, which is more optimistic than 538. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
{Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/upshot/hillary-clinton-has-a-76-percent-chance... points out at least one of the differences; 538 considers the improbable more likely than the NY Times model; e.g. NYT gives a 1% chance of Clinton getting less than 160 electoral votes, whereas 538 gives her an 8% chance, with 538 actually giving her more electoral votes on average.}
Fortunately, I live in a purple state, so my vote matters. There's things I can do, like threatening my friends who are going to vote for Jill Stein. (I kid, I kid! Maybe.)
{Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/upshot/hillary-clinton-has-a-76-percent-chance... points out at least one of the differences; 538 considers the improbable more likely than the NY Times model; e.g. NYT gives a 1% chance of Clinton getting less than 160 electoral votes, whereas 538 gives her an 8% chance, with 538 actually giving her more electoral votes on average.}
Fortunately, I live in a purple state, so my vote matters. There's things I can do, like threatening my friends who are going to vote for Jill Stein. (I kid, I kid! Maybe.)
160theoria
Lucifer turned up in the flesh on night three. Mr Cruz walked on to "American Idiot" and walked off to a Bronx cheer.
1612wonderY
>160 theoria: Unexpectedly, I can like something that Ted Cruz did.
162lriley
Trump eyeing Harold Hamm as his energy secretary. Hamm is one of the richest people in the world and made most of his money in the oil and gas industry from fracking and particularly in the state of Oklahoma. 7 or 8 years ago Oklahoma's annual average for earthquakes of .3 or more was about 1 and a half a year---now it's more like one and a half a day. The environmental damage caused from this kind of procedure is outrageous. Harold Hamm is about the worst person that anyone could pick for that job. Picking such a clown should exclude Trump from any kind of consideration by anyone who is at all concerned about water or air quality or who doesn't like earthquakes.
Which isn't to say that Hillary will pick someone all that much better---we'll have to wait and see. With her record on that I'm not very encouraged. At least there's some glimmer of hope still that she might pick someone decent. It's not much of a glimmer though.
Which isn't to say that Hillary will pick someone all that much better---we'll have to wait and see. With her record on that I'm not very encouraged. At least there's some glimmer of hope still that she might pick someone decent. It's not much of a glimmer though.
163artturnerjr
So, night four of the RNC is tonight, and the question, for me, is this: are we going to get a professional presentation, or are we going to continue with fucking amateur hour? Seriously - some of the individual speeches have been effective, but planning and damage control for this thing has been absolutely atrocious. The GOP wants to run the country, but they can't even make themselves presentable for a four-day convention? Gimme a break.
164justifiedsinner
>158 davidgn: No, it doesn't adhere to the novel just as Blade Runner didn't follow Dick's story. I read The Man in the High Castle over 40 years ago and thought it Dick's best work but my recollections of the plot are fuzzy at best. Accordingly, I took the TV series at face value and find it both gripping and creepy. Perhaps part of my assessment is due to a feeling that global politics are returning to the politics of the 20's and 30's with it's emphasis on Nationalism and scapegoating. I'm finding the juxtaposition rather chilling to say the least.
165theoria
>163 artturnerjr: Mr Trump is the consummate confidence man: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?hp&ac... )
"During a 45-minute conversation, (Trump) explicitly raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance."
Which directly contradicts the acceptance speech of his VP pick Mike Pence:
"We cannot have four more years of apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends. America needs to be strong for the world to be safe. On the world stage, Donald Trump will lead from strength. He will rebuild the arsenal of democracy, stand with our allies and hunt down and destroy our enemies of freedom." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/16/full_speech_pence_cannot_have_...
"During a 45-minute conversation, (Trump) explicitly raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance."
Which directly contradicts the acceptance speech of his VP pick Mike Pence:
"We cannot have four more years of apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends. America needs to be strong for the world to be safe. On the world stage, Donald Trump will lead from strength. He will rebuild the arsenal of democracy, stand with our allies and hunt down and destroy our enemies of freedom." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/16/full_speech_pence_cannot_have_...
166JGL53
Presently Presidential politics resembles nothing more than some crazy-ass made-for-TV fantasy science fiction drama.
IOW, who the hell has any basis whatsoever to guess what will happen tomorrow, or the next day, or a month or two from now?
This is like predicting which will win the final battle - the werewolves or the vampires?
I myself will wait until about October 15 and look at the polls and then I will get back to all you goombas with a rational prediction regarding the winner. But even then I will offer no 95-per-cent-confidence level prediction.
Right now it looks like some fucking asshole will win the election. That is as close as I can come to a prediction at this juncture.
IOW, who the hell has any basis whatsoever to guess what will happen tomorrow, or the next day, or a month or two from now?
This is like predicting which will win the final battle - the werewolves or the vampires?
I myself will wait until about October 15 and look at the polls and then I will get back to all you goombas with a rational prediction regarding the winner. But even then I will offer no 95-per-cent-confidence level prediction.
Right now it looks like some fucking asshole will win the election. That is as close as I can come to a prediction at this juncture.
167LolaWalser
>165 theoria:
raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked
Does he know what NATO is for?
All this would be positively hilarious if it were happening on some other planet...
raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked
Does he know what NATO is for?
All this would be positively hilarious if it were happening on some other planet...
168theoria
>167 LolaWalser: All this would be positively hilarious if it were happening on some other planet...
You mean the US!
Fortunately, .ca is still habitable for human life...
You mean the US!
Fortunately, .ca is still habitable for human life...
169artturnerjr
>165 theoria:
Wow. So, in a nutshell, Trump wants break our treaties and have the US run a protection racket. I also noticed in the piece that he again expressed admiration for an extremist authoritarian leader (Erdogan). Not very reassuring coming from a man that could occupy the White House next year. But then again, what about Trump is?
Wow. So, in a nutshell, Trump wants break our treaties and have the US run a protection racket. I also noticed in the piece that he again expressed admiration for an extremist authoritarian leader (Erdogan). Not very reassuring coming from a man that could occupy the White House next year. But then again, what about Trump is?
170justifiedsinner
>169 artturnerjr: Why should this be a surprise? Trump, Erdogan and Putin are all populist, nationalist strongmen, Trump admires Mussolini - at least in this he is consistent.
171artturnerjr
>170 justifiedsinner:
Oh, I don't find it surprising at all. People probably think I'm being over the top when I describe Trump as a fascist. Generally, in reference to an American politician, I would be, but hey, if the shoe fits...
Oh, I don't find it surprising at all. People probably think I'm being over the top when I describe Trump as a fascist. Generally, in reference to an American politician, I would be, but hey, if the shoe fits...
173LolaWalser
I'm not listening to Trump (why would I do that to myself), but following the comments on The Guardian is hilarious.
174davidgn
Hate to say it, but his speechwriters are hitting it out of the park tonight. Same with Ivanka's speech. Nauseating at times, but goddamn will this play well.
177LolaWalser
Balloons
Balloons.
Balloons.
179LolaWalser
Ball-shaped hairy balloons, everywhere.
180LolaWalser
*sad tuba*
We Will Make America Strong Again.
paaaarrrrrp
We Will Make America Proud Again.
paaaarrrrrrppp
We Will Make America Safe Again.
prrrrpppparp
And We Will Make America Great Again.
PAArrpaaarp
THANK YOU.
PAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRpppppppppppppppppp........ . .
. .. ..... .
We Will Make America Strong Again.
paaaarrrrrp
We Will Make America Proud Again.
paaaarrrrrrppp
We Will Make America Safe Again.
prrrrpppparp
And We Will Make America Great Again.
PAArrpaaarp
THANK YOU.
PAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRpppppppppppppppppp........ . .
. .. ..... .
181theoria
Trump simplified:
America, you're gonna get killed. Believe it.
America, if you want to live, vote for me. Believe it.
America, be very afraid. Believe it.
To the rest of the world: I'm gonna screw you. Believe it.
America, you're gonna get killed. Believe it.
America, if you want to live, vote for me. Believe it.
America, be very afraid. Believe it.
To the rest of the world: I'm gonna screw you. Believe it.
182RickHarsch
>Thanks to all of the above for saving me from having to read about any of it.
183rastaphrog
For those who may be interested, here's a link to text of his speech that was leaked before he made it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-ac...
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but had to take note of something I heard on the news as I drove home from work this morning. He promises to protect LGBTQ folks from hateful foreign ideologies, but as the news reporter noted, makes no mention of protecting them from his fellow republicans.
And while there may be a mention of religion somewhere in the speech, there is no specific mention of God, nor does he say "God bless America".
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-ac...
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but had to take note of something I heard on the news as I drove home from work this morning. He promises to protect LGBTQ folks from hateful foreign ideologies, but as the news reporter noted, makes no mention of protecting them from his fellow republicans.
And while there may be a mention of religion somewhere in the speech, there is no specific mention of God, nor does he say "God bless America".
184justifiedsinner
>183 rastaphrog: Also missing, I believe, are the thanks to the military (traditional in Republican speechs). However he failed mention the concerns of Latinos and African-Americans (which is in line with Republican norms).
185Jesse_wiedinmyer
He didn't fail to mention the concerns of, he mentioned concerns about.
As for his concerns about LGBTQ people, I'll just quote Malcolm.
"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife."
Deciding to stop killing the LGBTQ community is only progress in not being assholes.
As for his concerns about LGBTQ people, I'll just quote Malcolm.
"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife."
Deciding to stop killing the LGBTQ community is only progress in not being assholes.
186StormRaven
I will point out that virtually every factual claim Trump made in his acceptable speech is demonstrably untrue.
187John5918
>186 StormRaven:
Sounds a bit like virtually every factual claim the UK pro-Brexit campaigners made in their campaign...
Sounds a bit like virtually every factual claim the UK pro-Brexit campaigners made in their campaign...
191StormRaven
The demand for ideological purity is what has been killing the Republican party over the last decade. Lambasting Kaine because he isn't properly pure on a handful of issues when, realistically, he agrees with Warren and Sanders on more than 95% of the issues is going down the same path on the Democratic side.
192krazy4katz
>191 StormRaven: That is an extremely important point that people always forget. Thank you for saying it.
And if we could elect a Congress that would do more than obstruct the President, we might see more movement to the left from Hillary. I don't see her as that different from Sanders except she knows she needs the middle to win. We need small steps.
And if we could elect a Congress that would do more than obstruct the President, we might see more movement to the left from Hillary. I don't see her as that different from Sanders except she knows she needs the middle to win. We need small steps.
194timspalding
raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked
Does he know what NATO is for?
There is a point there. The vast majority of NATO countries are now under-spending--only five of the twenty-eight countries are spending at the levels they had agreed to. With Russia ascendant, that's a concern. ( See http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-... )
On the other hand, this is just not how you do it. NATO means nothing if you don't come to the aid of countries when attacked. Questioning that is ultimately far more damaging.
My larger concern is simply that we lose by even playing this game. We're not talking about a guy who makes an occasional foreign-policy blunder. This isn't a major concern. Nor is Melania's speech writing. We're talking about a national catastrophe--a narcissist, an egotist, a moral disaster, a bumbler, a liar, a fool, a bigot, a racist and fascist unqualified, unprepared and unfit to hold the job. I worry all these little debates detract from that simple reality. In a way, they concede ground.
The demand for ideological purity is what has been killing the Republican party over the last decade. Lambasting Kaine because he isn't properly pure on a handful of issues when, realistically, he agrees with Warren and Sanders on more than 95% of the issues is going down the same path on the Democratic side.
I think Clinton is betting that picking another qualified, level-headed adult will show Trump's unsuitability even more. But I'm worried that lever is broken. Voters today seem increasingly unable to distinguish the adults from the children.
Does he know what NATO is for?
There is a point there. The vast majority of NATO countries are now under-spending--only five of the twenty-eight countries are spending at the levels they had agreed to. With Russia ascendant, that's a concern. ( See http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-... )
On the other hand, this is just not how you do it. NATO means nothing if you don't come to the aid of countries when attacked. Questioning that is ultimately far more damaging.
My larger concern is simply that we lose by even playing this game. We're not talking about a guy who makes an occasional foreign-policy blunder. This isn't a major concern. Nor is Melania's speech writing. We're talking about a national catastrophe--a narcissist, an egotist, a moral disaster, a bumbler, a liar, a fool, a bigot, a racist and fascist unqualified, unprepared and unfit to hold the job. I worry all these little debates detract from that simple reality. In a way, they concede ground.
The demand for ideological purity is what has been killing the Republican party over the last decade. Lambasting Kaine because he isn't properly pure on a handful of issues when, realistically, he agrees with Warren and Sanders on more than 95% of the issues is going down the same path on the Democratic side.
I think Clinton is betting that picking another qualified, level-headed adult will show Trump's unsuitability even more. But I'm worried that lever is broken. Voters today seem increasingly unable to distinguish the adults from the children.
195davidgn
NATO is the shunt whereby the United States, essentially a Western Hemispheric power, maintains its status as a major player in what theorists have called the World-Island (i.e. Eurasia/Africa) of the Eastern Hemisphere. Its essential purpose, as its first Secretary-General Hastings Lionel Ismay so aptly put it, has always been "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Lest any of the European powers chafe at such an arrangement, there have always been various inducements to sweeten the deal. In recent times, certainly, one of these has been the U.S. mostly looking the other way when other alliance members consistently shirk their dues while still receiving benefits. An unspoken corollary is that an end to the free ride naturally risks highlighting and exacerbating the many submerged faults within the alliance. How you feel about that depends on how you feel about NATO and the U.S.'s role as global hegemon.
196proximity1
>194 timspalding:
This is a dialogue of the deaf.
There are no arguments offered here, just angry name-calling. Unless your readers already share your views, you offer them zero--nothing--in reasons to come around to your view.
Re :
" We're talking about a national catastrophe--a narcissist (somewhat like Clinton), an egotist (very much like Clinton), a moral disaster (Clinton's junior), a bumbler (Clinton's junior), a liar (you simply prefer Clinton's lies), a fool (no more so than Clinton), a bigot (just a difference in what he targets as opposed to Clinton's bigotry), a racist (no more so than Clinton) and fascist (you really should define what you mean--this is the successor scaremonger's term since "commie" lost its force) unqualified (better "qualified" in my opinion as is Clinton), unprepared and unfit to hold the job (Clinton is less fit and no more "prepared"--there is no "prep" for this job)."
Phhhhhfffftttt.
This is a dialogue of the deaf.
There are no arguments offered here, just angry name-calling. Unless your readers already share your views, you offer them zero--nothing--in reasons to come around to your view.
Re :
" We're talking about a national catastrophe--a narcissist (somewhat like Clinton), an egotist (very much like Clinton), a moral disaster (Clinton's junior), a bumbler (Clinton's junior), a liar (you simply prefer Clinton's lies), a fool (no more so than Clinton), a bigot (just a difference in what he targets as opposed to Clinton's bigotry), a racist (no more so than Clinton) and fascist (you really should define what you mean--this is the successor scaremonger's term since "commie" lost its force) unqualified (better "qualified" in my opinion as is Clinton), unprepared and unfit to hold the job (Clinton is less fit and no more "prepared"--there is no "prep" for this job)."
Phhhhhfffftttt.
197ArdenM
Let's not forget "a rapist." Not only do accusations come from women he attempted to sexually exploit, but also from his first wife. At the very least, how would you like to have a President who hides his behavior behind his lawyer's claim that it isn't rape when it's your wife. https://rapebyfraud.com/2015/07/28/spousal-rape-and-donald-trump/
Trump drums up support by appealing to people's fear and anger. He provides no solutions. He simply pokes their hatred and they think he's providing a solution by doing so. Inciting anger makes them all think they're uniting behind a cause...... and then he throws out some ridiculous solution like charging NATO members for our defense. Pence immediately shot down his ridiculous theory but, even then, the GOP didn't catch on.
A couple of months ago, he claimed he'd get rid of our national debt by pulling the same scumbag behavior he does with his vendors, committing to a price and then welshing on the deal he made. Problem is, it would put the treasury markets into a tailspin and collapse the world's economy. He has NO CONCEPT of how international money markets work, but he counts on voters not to know either.
He's using the same tactics Hitler used to unite people behind hatred. Trump is a Narcissistic loose cannon.
Trump drums up support by appealing to people's fear and anger. He provides no solutions. He simply pokes their hatred and they think he's providing a solution by doing so. Inciting anger makes them all think they're uniting behind a cause...... and then he throws out some ridiculous solution like charging NATO members for our defense. Pence immediately shot down his ridiculous theory but, even then, the GOP didn't catch on.
A couple of months ago, he claimed he'd get rid of our national debt by pulling the same scumbag behavior he does with his vendors, committing to a price and then welshing on the deal he made. Problem is, it would put the treasury markets into a tailspin and collapse the world's economy. He has NO CONCEPT of how international money markets work, but he counts on voters not to know either.
He's using the same tactics Hitler used to unite people behind hatred. Trump is a Narcissistic loose cannon.
198theoria
>197 ArdenM: The moderate Republicans I know are disgusted by Trump and have gone full Godwin on him.
199rastaphrog
>197 ArdenM:
Let's not forget "a rapist." Not only do accusations come from women he attempted to sexually exploit, but also from his first wife. At the very least, how would you like to have a President who hides his behavior behind his lawyer's claim that it isn't rape when it's your wife.
The problem there is how many men out there feel it's their "God given right" to have sex with their wife any time they want to, and if she's not willing, too damn bad. This just gets strengthened by the churches many of them attend where the minister uses the Bible to back them up with all their talk of the man being the head of the family, women needing to "submit" to their husbands, etc.
Let's not forget "a rapist." Not only do accusations come from women he attempted to sexually exploit, but also from his first wife. At the very least, how would you like to have a President who hides his behavior behind his lawyer's claim that it isn't rape when it's your wife.
The problem there is how many men out there feel it's their "God given right" to have sex with their wife any time they want to, and if she's not willing, too damn bad. This just gets strengthened by the churches many of them attend where the minister uses the Bible to back them up with all their talk of the man being the head of the family, women needing to "submit" to their husbands, etc.
200RickHarsch
NATO is a coercive entity and I applaud ALL 'underspending' nations.
201proximity1
E.g.
DNC E-mails revealed by
WikiLeaks :
WP: Liberal pundits blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not Bernie Sanders, for Democrats’ division
From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, BanfillR@dnc.org, PoughT@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-19 16:27 Subject: WP: Liberal pundits blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not Bernie Sanders, for Democrats’ division
This is really a problem, guys. We cannot allow this narrative to continue. Where is the balance? We have plenty of people that could push back. We must get a pushback story out there.
WASHINGTON POST
Liberal pundits blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not Bernie Sanders, for Democrats’ division
By Callum Borchers
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Bernie Sanders added fuel to the fire that raged at last weekend’s chaotic Democratic convention in Nevada, criticizing him for choosing to denounce party leaders before condemning violence in a written statement.
Liberal CNN commentator Van Jones sees things very differently.
“She says that Bernie's adding fuel to the fire? She just added fuel to the fire,” Jones said Tuesday, shortly after Wasserman Schultz said in an interview that Sanders's response to reports of a scuffle and threatening behavior by some of his supporters was "anything but acceptable."
Jones went on:
The problem that we have right now is that there has been this concern on the part of Bernie's people that the DNC has been on Hillary's side. ... First of all, Bernie did say, in his statement, that he's against the violence. Also, if you want to talk about violence, only one person's been arrested — it was a Hillary Clinton supporter, Wendell Pierce, arrested for assaulting a Sanders supporter.
So, if you're going to come out and you're going to talk about violence and you're the DNC chair, you have to be fair about it. I don't think she was fair. I think she actually made it worse now. We have to pull these people together. That did not happen.
(Pierce, we should note, is the former "The Wire" actor who was arrested over the weekend after an incident at an Atlanta hotel. There were no arrests at the Nevada convention.)
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski went farther than Jones on Wednesday, calling for Wasserman Schultz to resign.
"This has been very poorly handled from the start," Brzezinski said. "It has been unfair, and they haven’t taken him seriously, and it starts, quite frankly, with the person that we just heard speaking (Wasserman Schultz). It just does. ... She should step down. She should step down."
Fellow MSNBC host Chris Hayes, meanwhile, said Tuesday that it's clear that Wasserman Schultz's fingers are on the scale.
“It is clearly the case that when given truth serum, Debbie Wasserman Schultz vastly prefers Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, obviously, and to the extent that there are things that can be done institutionally and marginally to facilitate that outcome, they are being done," Hayes said.
As the Democratic presidential nominating contest drags on — with the Republican race already over — left-leaning pundits are increasingly pinning the blame for disunity on the party boss, instead of the underdog candidate who refuses to drop out. Sanders might be stubborn, but Wasserman Schultz drove him to it by favoring Clinton from the start. Or so the argument goes. And the situation in Nevada seems to have turned up the heat on some long-simmering tensions.
Top complaints include briefly suspending the Sanders campaign's access to a voter database and scheduling half as many primary debates (six) as the Republicans did — and putting half of those events on weekend nights, allegedly to minimize exposure and insulate the front-runner.
The database suspension was a penalty imposed after Sanders acknowledged that a staffer improperly exploited a software glitch that allowed him to view confidential voter information held by the Clinton campaign. The DNC eventually sanctioned four additional debates, though only three have been held and there is no date for the fourth.
The left side of the media has been criticizing Wasserman Schultz's handling of the primary process for a while. "Fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz," blared a to-the-point headline on the Huffington Post in December. On the same day, Slate declared that "Debbie Wasserman Schultz is acting just like the villain Bernie Sanders says she is."
More recently, Esquire's Charles P. Pierce called for Wasserman Schultz's ouster in March (though for reasons unrelated to the 2016 primary),
The liberal press isn't alone in its frustration. As The Fix's Janell Ross wrote in January, "Wasserman Schultz's list of enemies just keeps growing" — a list that includes some fellow Democrats and progressive advocacy groups. The consternation dates to at least 2014, when Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere wrote a lengthy piece about unhappiness with her performance.
As of Thursday morning, a MoveOn.org petition calling for Wasserman Schultz to resign had 76,146 digital signatures. A similar petition at Change.org had 60,525. Another on CREDO Action's website had 86,291.
It's clear that Wasserman Schultz is in a difficult spot — one she almost certainly didn't anticipate at the beginning of the election season. Sanders made the Democratic race far more competitive than anyone imagined. But as he delays the inevitable, Wasserman Schultz finds that she, too, is being cast as a divisive figure by the media.
On top of it all, the perception could be virtually impossible to shake. While Sanders will ultimately be judged by the extent to which he rallies supporters to Clinton in the general election, Wasserman Schultz is already being judged by moves she made early in the primary season that can't be reversed. Sanders backers might always believe their candidate didn't get a fair shake, and those accusations will probably be part of Wasserman Schultz's media narrative for a long time to come.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/liberal-pundits-blame-...
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
202JGL53
Defending HRC/Kaine against all criticism - i.e., being totally in the tank for HRC praise - is NOT the winning message. Most people will think you are full of shit if you go that route. No, really. Look at the polls concerning negatives.
Just admit HRC is a turd blossom BUT she is now the only alternative to stopping the biggest turd blossom in modern American politics to get a major party nomination - Orange Man-Baby donnie trump.
The lesser of evils - it is time-honored calculation and it will always sell because it is true - and most people can instinctively see that it is true - outside of numbnuts like diehard republican and democratic robots, or those who dream of perfection in their chosen candidates.
Pass the word - Vote HRC in 2016! - Because she only wins the SILVER medal in the Scumbag Olympics.
Just admit HRC is a turd blossom BUT she is now the only alternative to stopping the biggest turd blossom in modern American politics to get a major party nomination - Orange Man-Baby donnie trump.
The lesser of evils - it is time-honored calculation and it will always sell because it is true - and most people can instinctively see that it is true - outside of numbnuts like diehard republican and democratic robots, or those who dream of perfection in their chosen candidates.
Pass the word - Vote HRC in 2016! - Because she only wins the SILVER medal in the Scumbag Olympics.
203StormRaven
I think Clinton is looking at how her administration will run. She wants a friendly Senate, and taking Warren or Booker out makes that less likely. Duckworth is likely to win the seat she's running for, bolstering the chances of a Democratic Senate.
But Clinton is also thinking of contingencies - if the Democrats don't take the Senate, any appointments will have to go through a Republican Congress. If she leaves Perez and Castro at Labor and HUD, those are two confirmation fights she won't have to have. Kaine was likely picked in part because he was essentially expendable in the Senate. The other potential choices mostly weren't.
Also, it just came out that Castro violated the Hatch Act. It was a small violation, and it will likely blow over, but the timing of the information was terrible, and would have been the story if he had been picked as VP.
But Clinton is also thinking of contingencies - if the Democrats don't take the Senate, any appointments will have to go through a Republican Congress. If she leaves Perez and Castro at Labor and HUD, those are two confirmation fights she won't have to have. Kaine was likely picked in part because he was essentially expendable in the Senate. The other potential choices mostly weren't.
Also, it just came out that Castro violated the Hatch Act. It was a small violation, and it will likely blow over, but the timing of the information was terrible, and would have been the story if he had been picked as VP.
204lriley
#191--yeah like neo-liberal economic policies haven't been fucking this country over for decades. Big deal---it's just a single issue.
So here's another one he's pro fracking too.
So here's another one he's pro fracking too.
205theoria
>204 lriley: Sure, if one thinks neoliberalism is the root of all evil. Just as pro-lifers believe disrespect for innocent life is the root of evil, or anti-taxers think high taxes are the root of evil.
However, it is quite possible to hold the view that neoliberalism isn't the only political issue at stake in this election.
However, it is quite possible to hold the view that neoliberalism isn't the only political issue at stake in this election.
206StormRaven
The blunt truth is that Clinton needs to win at least a couple of swing states, and Kaine is what a swing state Democratic candidate looks like.
If you want to stamp your feet because the realities of politics don't match your personal desires, that's your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to take your childish tantrum seriously.
If you want to stamp your feet because the realities of politics don't match your personal desires, that's your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to take your childish tantrum seriously.
207lriley
#205--speaking of pro-lifers---well it seems there are pro-choicers who are not all that enthusiastic about Kaine either.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-2016-vp-pick-tim-...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-2016-vp-pick-tim-...
208krazy4katz
Well, I think the Sanders voters should understand that nothing will get done with a right-wing Congress anyway. They need to vote Democratic to insure that Hillary gets in, and do the same all the way down to the local level. THEN there will be an opportunity to push a more left-leaning agenda with a Democrat in the White House (yes, even Hillary).
Although I have to admit, her VP choice doesn't leave me feeling that good.
Although I have to admit, her VP choice doesn't leave me feeling that good.
209artturnerjr
>196 proximity1:
a racist (no more so than Clinton)
What an absurd statement. I was sort of nodding my head in agreement with your post until I got to that. Can you please explain to me how Hillary Clinton is as racist as the man who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and who said a district judge was incapable of doing his job because of his Mexican heritage?
Look. I don't really like Hillary Clinton all that much. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president. But comparing her to Donald Trump (particularly in reference to the effect she would have on America and the world as president) is just ridiculous. The Washington Post (which I see from >201 proximity1: that you read at least occasionally) breaks it down like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-are-unpopular-only-one-is-a-threat/...
Furthermore:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-unique-threat-to-ameri...
a racist (no more so than Clinton)
What an absurd statement. I was sort of nodding my head in agreement with your post until I got to that. Can you please explain to me how Hillary Clinton is as racist as the man who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and who said a district judge was incapable of doing his job because of his Mexican heritage?
Look. I don't really like Hillary Clinton all that much. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president. But comparing her to Donald Trump (particularly in reference to the effect she would have on America and the world as president) is just ridiculous. The Washington Post (which I see from >201 proximity1: that you read at least occasionally) breaks it down like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-are-unpopular-only-one-is-a-threat/...
Furthermore:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-unique-threat-to-ameri...
210Jesse_wiedinmyer
Odd that Proximity1 feels the ability to call anyone out on their racism.
211proximity1 
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
>209 artturnerjr:
... "Look. I don't really like Hillary Clinton all that much. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president. "...
Well that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Your primary vote for Sanders meant nothing if you now demonstrate that you can support Clinton.
"Oooo! I really like Bernie Sanders. He has a lot of good ideas. But, oh, well, Hillary won so I'll be voting for her." Fuck that for the bullshit that it is. Hillary Clinton cheated her way to the place she holds today; she hasn't even been nominated yet and you're going to vote for her in November.
Clinton really doesn't give a fucking damn that you "really don't like (her) all that much." All she wants is your vote. If you "like her" enough to vote for her, that's all that matters as far as she is (or practicalities are) concerned.
Once you've joined the ranks of those who'll vote for her-- whether because they adore her or, like you, shall vote for her "despite" that they "really don't like her all that much"--how much or how little you like her and the fact that you claim and you tell yourself that you "would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president" it makes not the slightest difference.
..." Can you please explain to me how Hillary Clinton is as racist as the man who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and who said a district judge was incapable of doing his job because of his Mexican heritage?" ...
Of course I could. The problem is that, having explained it to you, you couldn't understand it. That's clear from your having cited the WP in an opinion piece that starts with a headline like, "both are unpopular but only one is a threat."
Bullshit. Hillary Clinton is by far a greater threat to democracy and to democratically run political and electoral affairs than is Donald Trump. And you are completely incapable of recognizing that.
This bullshit that "both are unpopular but only one is a threat" is obviously going to be the chant of her supporters in answer to any and all critics' objections. It's straight out of their "our rebuttal talking points."
Explaining to you is a waste of my time.
... "Look. I don't really like Hillary Clinton all that much. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president. "...
Well that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Your primary vote for Sanders meant nothing if you now demonstrate that you can support Clinton.
"Oooo! I really like Bernie Sanders. He has a lot of good ideas. But, oh, well, Hillary won so I'll be voting for her." Fuck that for the bullshit that it is. Hillary Clinton cheated her way to the place she holds today; she hasn't even been nominated yet and you're going to vote for her in November.
Clinton really doesn't give a fucking damn that you "really don't like (her) all that much." All she wants is your vote. If you "like her" enough to vote for her, that's all that matters as far as she is (or practicalities are) concerned.
Once you've joined the ranks of those who'll vote for her-- whether because they adore her or, like you, shall vote for her "despite" that they "really don't like her all that much"--how much or how little you like her and the fact that you claim and you tell yourself that you "would greatly prefer it if he was the Democratic nominee for president" it makes not the slightest difference.
..." Can you please explain to me how Hillary Clinton is as racist as the man who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and who said a district judge was incapable of doing his job because of his Mexican heritage?" ...
Of course I could. The problem is that, having explained it to you, you couldn't understand it. That's clear from your having cited the WP in an opinion piece that starts with a headline like, "both are unpopular but only one is a threat."
Bullshit. Hillary Clinton is by far a greater threat to democracy and to democratically run political and electoral affairs than is Donald Trump. And you are completely incapable of recognizing that.
This bullshit that "both are unpopular but only one is a threat" is obviously going to be the chant of her supporters in answer to any and all critics' objections. It's straight out of their "our rebuttal talking points."
Explaining to you is a waste of my time.
212Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Your primary vote for Sanders meant nothing if you now demonstrate that you can support Clinton.
It's a good thing someone explained that to Sanders.
Explaining to you is a waste of my time.
Sweet. As fun as it is to waste your time, it might be even more fun to not have to listen to you. Just think, if you stopped explaining, it's a win/win. You'd save so much time and...
It's a good thing someone explained that to Sanders.
Explaining to you is a waste of my time.
Sweet. As fun as it is to waste your time, it might be even more fun to not have to listen to you. Just think, if you stopped explaining, it's a win/win. You'd save so much time and...
213lriley
Sure we can go on about the economics of the country and say it's a single issue and compare to other single issues that the right has taken like the pro-lifers and abortion, the NRA and assault weapon bans, and the tea partyista's and taxes. Personally if you're looking at how we set economic policy it blows all these other issues away in importance. Economic policy impacts on everything we do and everyone that breathes--it's not just 15% of the population being directly affected by economic policy or even 60%---it's 100% of everybody. To me if you're a politician and going to be wrong on policy on something that's about the worst thing to be wrong on.
An economy that works for its population doesn't set policies that destroys it's manufacturing/industrial base. An economy that works for its population also constantly and continually invests in its own infrastructure whether it is roads, bridges, airports or schools. It acknowledges trends such as population growth projections and tries to meet those additional needs and strains on the economy with even more infrastructure investment and job growth. An economy that works for its population doesn't try to put its young people behind the eight ball by aiding and abetting predatory lenders and undermining students opportunities to pay off college debt. Though we can say here that if Hillary lives up to recent rhetoric maybe she will change something for the better in that particular area. An economy that worked for its population would also look at what worked in other nations and try to incorporate those things that work elsewhere into our own society and here I speaking for one thing again about a nationalized health care system. And as a by the way an economy that works for its population doesn't lead the world in incarcerating people.
But again anyway apparently Kaine like Clinton is a bit not on the climate change wagon either. Still think (this is the best read for them) that fracking can be done cleanly and efficiently and profitably. Maybe 3-4-5 years from now they'll get it and catch up with the science. Maybe. Environmental problems are catching up with us though--we are wrecking the planet and the major reason we're wrecking it is so corporations and the super wealthy can make profit. When you have so many friends on Wall St. though that might be hard to see.
An economy that works for its population doesn't set policies that destroys it's manufacturing/industrial base. An economy that works for its population also constantly and continually invests in its own infrastructure whether it is roads, bridges, airports or schools. It acknowledges trends such as population growth projections and tries to meet those additional needs and strains on the economy with even more infrastructure investment and job growth. An economy that works for its population doesn't try to put its young people behind the eight ball by aiding and abetting predatory lenders and undermining students opportunities to pay off college debt. Though we can say here that if Hillary lives up to recent rhetoric maybe she will change something for the better in that particular area. An economy that worked for its population would also look at what worked in other nations and try to incorporate those things that work elsewhere into our own society and here I speaking for one thing again about a nationalized health care system. And as a by the way an economy that works for its population doesn't lead the world in incarcerating people.
But again anyway apparently Kaine like Clinton is a bit not on the climate change wagon either. Still think (this is the best read for them) that fracking can be done cleanly and efficiently and profitably. Maybe 3-4-5 years from now they'll get it and catch up with the science. Maybe. Environmental problems are catching up with us though--we are wrecking the planet and the major reason we're wrecking it is so corporations and the super wealthy can make profit. When you have so many friends on Wall St. though that might be hard to see.
214JGL53
I suggest youse guys leave off arguing about HRC being a racist.
That is not the point.
HRC is a god damn narcissist - in the full clinical definition - so all other humans (except Chelsey perhaps) are mere meat for the table for her - dark meat, white meat, whatever.
She may also be a sociopath. There is evidence of that. Unlike trump, who is like a mentally-backwards three-year-old who makes no effort to hide any of his sick personality, HRC has fooled a lot of people into thinking she is a normal human being (not unusual - most narcissists have this skill).
She is not a normal person. Not by a long shot.
The helicopter landing in Bosnia should have been enough to tip everybody off. That and the lies about the TPP. Or about gay marriage (I am not gay and have no close gay friends but her lies here really alerted me to what a slimy scuzball HRC truly is).
Anyone who can blatantly lie about her political position, even when there is video proving she is lying, and then just continue to lie about the same damn thing, constitutionally unable to admit error - that is narcissistic personality disorder, and is possibly a sign of sociopathic disorder.
Again, as pointed out by wiser persons than me, it is and always has been just a "lesser of evils" choice. How fucktarded does an Amurican have to be in order not to grok this?
That is not the point.
HRC is a god damn narcissist - in the full clinical definition - so all other humans (except Chelsey perhaps) are mere meat for the table for her - dark meat, white meat, whatever.
She may also be a sociopath. There is evidence of that. Unlike trump, who is like a mentally-backwards three-year-old who makes no effort to hide any of his sick personality, HRC has fooled a lot of people into thinking she is a normal human being (not unusual - most narcissists have this skill).
She is not a normal person. Not by a long shot.
The helicopter landing in Bosnia should have been enough to tip everybody off. That and the lies about the TPP. Or about gay marriage (I am not gay and have no close gay friends but her lies here really alerted me to what a slimy scuzball HRC truly is).
Anyone who can blatantly lie about her political position, even when there is video proving she is lying, and then just continue to lie about the same damn thing, constitutionally unable to admit error - that is narcissistic personality disorder, and is possibly a sign of sociopathic disorder.
Again, as pointed out by wiser persons than me, it is and always has been just a "lesser of evils" choice. How fucktarded does an Amurican have to be in order not to grok this?
215davidgn
On Trump-Putin, since that's apparently now a "thing."
Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/clinton-asserts-putin-influence-on-us-elect...
Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/clinton-asserts-putin-influence-on-us-elect...
216artturnerjr
>211 proximity1:
Oh goodness. What a thrill to find someone who can judge somebody's intellectual capacity on the basis of a handful of LT Talk posts and a single hyperlink. What staggering powers of perception you must have. Please enlighten me with your obviously superior sagacity.
Oh wait - I'm blocking you, so I guess you can't do that.
PS A word to the wise - condescension is pretty much never a good way to win someone over to your side of an argument.
Oh goodness. What a thrill to find someone who can judge somebody's intellectual capacity on the basis of a handful of LT Talk posts and a single hyperlink. What staggering powers of perception you must have. Please enlighten me with your obviously superior sagacity.
Oh wait - I'm blocking you, so I guess you can't do that.
PS A word to the wise - condescension is pretty much never a good way to win someone over to your side of an argument.
217RickHarsch
>216 artturnerjr: Rest assured that I am not the only one who sees you are being insulted and immediately stops reading, for, as JW suggests, time is a-wastin.
>211 proximity1: Take a page from the JGL53 book of Writing without Need for Etiquette: he writes what he likes and allows the reader to determine whether or not to be insulted. And he's never boring. Your posts are virtually all boring and it's almost all about delivery.
>211 proximity1: Take a page from the JGL53 book of Writing without Need for Etiquette: he writes what he likes and allows the reader to determine whether or not to be insulted. And he's never boring. Your posts are virtually all boring and it's almost all about delivery.
218artturnerjr
>217 RickHarsch:
Rest assured that I am not the only one who sees you are being insulted and immediately stops reading, for, as JW suggests, time is a-wastin.
Thanks for that. It's unfortunate - p1 seems like a reasonable intelligent person, and one with whom I could find some middle ground with in a political discussion. But I decided a long time ago that I will not be spoken to like that by anyone, ever.
Rest assured that I am not the only one who sees you are being insulted and immediately stops reading, for, as JW suggests, time is a-wastin.
Thanks for that. It's unfortunate - p1 seems like a reasonable intelligent person, and one with whom I could find some middle ground with in a political discussion. But I decided a long time ago that I will not be spoken to like that by anyone, ever.
219proximity1
from Huffington Post --a site I only reluctantly propose--
THE BLOG | 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win / ( 1 day ago | Updated 1 day ago) -- by Michael Moore, Oscar and Emmy-winning Director
220JGL53
> 219
The point is - at this juncture we cannot just dismiss the possibility of a trump victory as being extremely unlikely. Those halcyon days are gone and gone. Where once there was a zenith now there is a nadir. We have gazed into the abyss and have seen the Orange.
Yes, my friends and enemies, HRC is SO bad a candidate, and a really bad campaigner, that we Amuricans are all now on the razor's edge, and we are slowly beginning to slip sideways into the fiery ORANGE Pit of Hellfire. Do youse guys fucking Follow My Drift?
I.e., trump is only 2 to 3 per cent behind HRC in the polls now. After all he has said and done.
In recent weeks trump has caught up, not by going up in the polls himself, but by HRC going down in the polls. I.e., a lot of the people polled now give a pass to both candidates. This number is around 15 to 20 per cent. Who the hell knows where these confused Amuricans will go by that fated day Nov. 8. How many will not vote and who are they - most democratic - or republican - voters? Who will vote Libertarian or Green and in what numbers and in what states? Will many republicans vote for HRC? (This is one I actually doubt.) And the BernieBros? We know they look down on women - so will they condescend to vote for one?
One jack-off Amurican's guess is as good as another right now as to how this crapfest will play out.
I myself have this vision of trump making such a ridiculous fucktarded ass of himself in the months to come that HRC will Title Nine over the finish-line first. I cannot see trump doing very well in any debate with HRC. Maybe trump will crap his diaper so egregiously that he will be behind 15 points by the middle of October. Hard to say.
Now according to my christian relatives and neighbors Satan is real and working his magic every day in the world somewhere on most people. If jesus, god, and the holy ghost are off busy in some other galaxy on election day then Satan would have an opening to make the ultimate bad thing happen. The KJV (T.M.) says that Armageddon (the final conflict) will occur AT THE LAST TRUMP. (!!!!!!!!)
Get it?
I didn't say that. The bible says that.
So pray and vote like you have never prayed or voted before, motherfuckers.
You too, atheists.
The point is - at this juncture we cannot just dismiss the possibility of a trump victory as being extremely unlikely. Those halcyon days are gone and gone. Where once there was a zenith now there is a nadir. We have gazed into the abyss and have seen the Orange.
Yes, my friends and enemies, HRC is SO bad a candidate, and a really bad campaigner, that we Amuricans are all now on the razor's edge, and we are slowly beginning to slip sideways into the fiery ORANGE Pit of Hellfire. Do youse guys fucking Follow My Drift?
I.e., trump is only 2 to 3 per cent behind HRC in the polls now. After all he has said and done.
In recent weeks trump has caught up, not by going up in the polls himself, but by HRC going down in the polls. I.e., a lot of the people polled now give a pass to both candidates. This number is around 15 to 20 per cent. Who the hell knows where these confused Amuricans will go by that fated day Nov. 8. How many will not vote and who are they - most democratic - or republican - voters? Who will vote Libertarian or Green and in what numbers and in what states? Will many republicans vote for HRC? (This is one I actually doubt.) And the BernieBros? We know they look down on women - so will they condescend to vote for one?
One jack-off Amurican's guess is as good as another right now as to how this crapfest will play out.
I myself have this vision of trump making such a ridiculous fucktarded ass of himself in the months to come that HRC will Title Nine over the finish-line first. I cannot see trump doing very well in any debate with HRC. Maybe trump will crap his diaper so egregiously that he will be behind 15 points by the middle of October. Hard to say.
Now according to my christian relatives and neighbors Satan is real and working his magic every day in the world somewhere on most people. If jesus, god, and the holy ghost are off busy in some other galaxy on election day then Satan would have an opening to make the ultimate bad thing happen. The KJV (T.M.) says that Armageddon (the final conflict) will occur AT THE LAST TRUMP. (!!!!!!!!)
Get it?
I didn't say that. The bible says that.
So pray and vote like you have never prayed or voted before, motherfuckers.
You too, atheists.
221lriley
#220--As far as the animal known as a Berniebro I guess I would qualify at least to some of the people who post on this site. I've never claimed though to be any such thing--in fact I think the term Berniebro was originally coined by some members of the now discredited DNC (so I'd call a berniebro a fictional beast--kind of comparable to the boogeyman) who are currently so busy doing damage control that I doubt they could find the time to own up to their invention.
Funny thing is I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and am prepared to do the same in 2016. I've even given her some money--whether hard earned or not. Last I knew Jill Stein was a woman and even considers herself a feminist. So make of it what you will but to my mind I don't think I have a problem with a woman becoming POTUS. I think Jill is the best candidate currently running.
Well Trump win? I think he and his campaign are as apt to shoot themselves in the foot as the Clinton campaign. So it's still Hillary's election to lose. Those rust belt swing states though--they've lost a lot of jobs and the state of some of the infrastructure in Michigan for one is horrific. She could lose Pennsylania and Ohio. Some think she's a lock in Michigan. I'm not so sure. Her campaign was sure it was going to win Michigan in the primaries. She would have been better off picking Sherrod Brown (Ohio) to be her VP. He is one of the leftier democrats and not a neo-liberal and even if Kasich replaced him with a republican I think it would have boosted her poll numbers. It certainly would have an appeasement for a lot of Sanders supporters as well.
The world I've lived in has almost always been one step away from the apocalypse. IMO the apocalypse is not going to be the revenge of some almighty and divine being. If it ever comes we'll have brought it on ourselves. FDR said not to fear fear. I'm kind of with him.
Funny thing is I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and am prepared to do the same in 2016. I've even given her some money--whether hard earned or not. Last I knew Jill Stein was a woman and even considers herself a feminist. So make of it what you will but to my mind I don't think I have a problem with a woman becoming POTUS. I think Jill is the best candidate currently running.
Well Trump win? I think he and his campaign are as apt to shoot themselves in the foot as the Clinton campaign. So it's still Hillary's election to lose. Those rust belt swing states though--they've lost a lot of jobs and the state of some of the infrastructure in Michigan for one is horrific. She could lose Pennsylania and Ohio. Some think she's a lock in Michigan. I'm not so sure. Her campaign was sure it was going to win Michigan in the primaries. She would have been better off picking Sherrod Brown (Ohio) to be her VP. He is one of the leftier democrats and not a neo-liberal and even if Kasich replaced him with a republican I think it would have boosted her poll numbers. It certainly would have an appeasement for a lot of Sanders supporters as well.
The world I've lived in has almost always been one step away from the apocalypse. IMO the apocalypse is not going to be the revenge of some almighty and divine being. If it ever comes we'll have brought it on ourselves. FDR said not to fear fear. I'm kind of with him.
222justifiedsinner
>221 lriley: Actually FDR said the opposite - the only thing to fear is fear itself. In the current context this would mean being afraid of the Trump's fear-mongering and it's potential to distort the political process.
223RickHarsch
Turmp has no context
225proximity1
(yesterday at this time)
Nate Silver ✔@NateSilver538
TRUMP now leads in 538's now-cast, our estimate of what would happen in an election today. http://53eig.ht/2aq4w6p
2:49 PM - 25 Jul 2016
-------------
(From an article at Real Clear Politics
by Chris Cillizza)
"How can this be, many Democrats — and even some Republicans — ask? How, given all of the mistakes, gaffes and other issues that have dogged Trump's campaign, can he be tied or maybe even ahead?
"First, see above. All of the rules are off. Assuming they aren't ignores recent history.
"Second, Clinton is a uniquely flawed candidate. She has been in the national eye for a very long time and people have largely made up their minds about her. It is very hard for her to change those perceptions. What that means is she has a hard and relatively low vote ceiling; no matter what she says or does (or what Trump says or does) there is a rock-hard group of people who will not vote for her.
In a binary choice election — which is what this is — Trump benefits from the fact that he is simply not Clinton. What's happened to date in the race — pre-GOP convention — is that support has peeled off Clinton but not gone to Trump. Rather, it's moved to 'undecided.' The GOP convention, as Philip Bump documented here, led to some movement to Trump. Hence the tightening in polls.
"What this all means is that the race is close today and there's plenty of reason to believe it will stay like that all the way until the election. For those who say Trump can't win, you probably said he would have never made it this far. All assumptions need to go out the window in an election like this one. Trump seems to understand that."
Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
---------
Think you're going to get HR&BC re-elected by regarding Sanders supporters as just a distraction, by telling them that you don't need their votes by saying, "go fuck off!" ?
Even if this time the lesson doesn't "take," before much longer it's going to become quite clear that, unless you start dealing fairly with the left-wing Democrats (the Democratic wing), you're never again getting both the Congress and the White House at the same time. Leftists are at last going to figure it out and make it very clear: if our own party's right wing is determined to both take us for granted AND shut us out of a meaningful role, then, fuck it!: get used to Relublicans in the White House. It's so very close to what you seem to want anyway and it's certainly what you deserve to get.
Nate Silver ✔@NateSilver538
TRUMP now leads in 538's now-cast, our estimate of what would happen in an election today. http://53eig.ht/2aq4w6p
2:49 PM - 25 Jul 2016
-------------
(From an article at Real Clear Politics
by Chris Cillizza)
"How can this be, many Democrats — and even some Republicans — ask? How, given all of the mistakes, gaffes and other issues that have dogged Trump's campaign, can he be tied or maybe even ahead?
"First, see above. All of the rules are off. Assuming they aren't ignores recent history.
"Second, Clinton is a uniquely flawed candidate. She has been in the national eye for a very long time and people have largely made up their minds about her. It is very hard for her to change those perceptions. What that means is she has a hard and relatively low vote ceiling; no matter what she says or does (or what Trump says or does) there is a rock-hard group of people who will not vote for her.
In a binary choice election — which is what this is — Trump benefits from the fact that he is simply not Clinton. What's happened to date in the race — pre-GOP convention — is that support has peeled off Clinton but not gone to Trump. Rather, it's moved to 'undecided.' The GOP convention, as Philip Bump documented here, led to some movement to Trump. Hence the tightening in polls.
"What this all means is that the race is close today and there's plenty of reason to believe it will stay like that all the way until the election. For those who say Trump can't win, you probably said he would have never made it this far. All assumptions need to go out the window in an election like this one. Trump seems to understand that."
Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
---------
Think you're going to get HR&BC re-elected by regarding Sanders supporters as just a distraction, by telling them that you don't need their votes by saying, "go fuck off!" ?
Even if this time the lesson doesn't "take," before much longer it's going to become quite clear that, unless you start dealing fairly with the left-wing Democrats (the Democratic wing), you're never again getting both the Congress and the White House at the same time. Leftists are at last going to figure it out and make it very clear: if our own party's right wing is determined to both take us for granted AND shut us out of a meaningful role, then, fuck it!: get used to Relublicans in the White House. It's so very close to what you seem to want anyway and it's certainly what you deserve to get.
226BruceCoulson
People are angry (about social changes, and about the changes to their personal welfare); people are scared (mostly because both parties have encouraged their fears, but the mundane fears about their jobs and their futures are also there, despite both parties insisting those fears are misplaced).
Angry, frightened people start wondering about the current leaders and the status quo; if those leaders know what they're doing, why are they still afraid? Why are they still having to deal with unwanted social changes? Why aren't the current leaders doing anything to address their concerns? (They say they are, but nothing seems to be happening.)
And then someone from outside the norm comes along, someone who isn't a part of the current leadership, who says not only does he knows what's wrong, he knows how to fix it. Maybe he's wrong; but then, the current leaders haven't done anything, so why not give him a chance? And the status quo's disdain of the new leader only helps him, because it's the status quo that people are unhappy about.
Any number of people have gained power in such a manner; why not Trump?
Angry, frightened people start wondering about the current leaders and the status quo; if those leaders know what they're doing, why are they still afraid? Why are they still having to deal with unwanted social changes? Why aren't the current leaders doing anything to address their concerns? (They say they are, but nothing seems to be happening.)
And then someone from outside the norm comes along, someone who isn't a part of the current leadership, who says not only does he knows what's wrong, he knows how to fix it. Maybe he's wrong; but then, the current leaders haven't done anything, so why not give him a chance? And the status quo's disdain of the new leader only helps him, because it's the status quo that people are unhappy about.
Any number of people have gained power in such a manner; why not Trump?
227justifiedsinner
>224 proximity1: No, I think others are quite accomplished: V. V. Putin, Marine Le Pen, Victor Orbán, Frauke Petry etc.
228proximity1
>227 justifiedsinner:
as though political right-wingers have some sort of monopoly on fear-mongering! Lol!
as though political right-wingers have some sort of monopoly on fear-mongering! Lol!
230Jesse_wiedinmyer
There sure as fuck isn't anything progressivise about your politics.
231proximity1
At the Democratic party's national convention(al) puke-fest:
Incumbent Con-man-in-chief pictured (at "left" (only in the photo, of course)) with his chosen successor after passing her the blood-stained "baton."
Election returns forecast :
The .01% win. The rest of us lose heavily.
Never? Never ever?
Thomas Jefferson ★--
Theodore Roosevelt ★--
Franklin Roosevelt ☆--
George H.W. Bush ☆ / ★--
--less than or only equal to Hillary Clinton in qualifications ?
-----------
☆ : had already served one or more terms as president of the United States when last elected to that office.
★ : had already served as vice-president of the United States when elected president.
Incumbent Con-man-in-chief pictured (at "left" (only in the photo, of course)) with his chosen successor after passing her the blood-stained "baton."
Election returns forecast :
The .01% win. The rest of us lose heavily.
“There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody, more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president.”
-- President Barack Obama, 27 July, 2016 at Philadelphia party convention
Never? Never ever?
Thomas Jefferson ★--
○ Minister to France (appointed by the Congress of the Confederation)
○ (First) U.S. Secretary of State
○ Vice-president of the U.S.
○ Governor of Virginia
..." Jefferson mastered many disciplines which ranged from surveying and mathematics to horticulture and mechanics. He was a proven architect in the classical tradition. Jefferson's keen interest in religion and philosophy earned him the presidency of the American Philosophical Society. He shunned organized religion, but was influenced by both Christianity and deism. He was well versed in linguistics and spoke several languages. He founded the University of Virginia after retiring from public office." (Wikipedia)
Theodore Roosevelt ★--
○ U.S. Vice-president (six months)
○ Assistant Secretary of the Navy
○ Governor of New York
○ Assemblyman New York State Assembly
○ Minority leader, New York State Assembly
Franklin Roosevelt ☆--
○ New York State senator
○ Assistant Secretary of the Navy
○ Governor of New York
○ Three-terms as President of the United States when last elected to that office (1940)
George H.W. Bush ☆ / ★--
○ Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Texas's 7th district : January 3, 1967 – January 3, 1971
○ United States Ambassador to the United Nations : March 1, 1971 – January 18, 1973
○ 41st President of the United States : January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
○ 43rd Vice President of the United States : January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
○ Director of Central Intelligence :January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977
○ Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China :September 26, 1974 – December 7, 1975
○ Chair of the Republican National Committee : January 19, 1973 – September 16, 1974
○ United States Ambassador to the United Nations : March 1, 1971 – January 18, 1973
--less than or only equal to Hillary Clinton in qualifications ?
-----------
☆ : had already served one or more terms as president of the United States when last elected to that office.
★ : had already served as vice-president of the United States when elected president.
232proximity1
From The Washington Examiner
28 July 2016
"Has Obama's act worn thin?"
-- by Byron York
PHILADELPHIA — For all his appeal as a speaker, and for all the love coming from Democrats crowded inside the Wells Fargo Arena, President Obama made a classic mistake in his address to the Democratic convention Wednesday night. Determined to defend his own accomplishments in office as well as convince Americans to elect Hillary Clinton for what would amount to his third term, Obama painted a picture of life in the United States that was brighter and more positive than most voters believe.
"While this nation has been tested by war and recession and all manner of challenge — I stand before you again tonight, after almost two terms as your president, to tell you I am even more optimistic about the future of America," Obama said.
"How could I not be — after all we've achieved together?"
In the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 73 percent of registered voters said the country is on the wrong track, while just 18 percent said it is headed in the right direction. The 73 percent figure is the second-highest in the president's nearly eight years in office.
The poll was no outlier. These are the wrong-track numbers for the last ten polls in the RealClearPolitics average of polls: 67, 70, 67, 71, 73, 69, 79, 68, 60 and 66.
And yet, in spite of clear evidence that a majority of Americans believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, the president exhorted the nation, "Thank you for this incredible journey — let's keep it going."
Obama spoke as if broad areas of American life are better than ever, even if there remains work to be done. When Obama said, "My time in this office — it hasn't fixed everything," the millions of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track might have seen that as a significant understatement. ...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2598004
233theoria
You know one has reached rock bottom vis-a-vis political rationality when one references a Fox News contributor about a Democratic politician. Especially one who has published a title such as The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President—and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
234JGL53
> 233
^ Serves as a classic example of argumentum ad hominem. The next professor who writes a book on logic might want to utilize the above as a perfect explanatory example of this type of fallacious argument.
So, one supposes that if trump were to advise us all to drink 8 glasses of water a day for good health then theoria would immediately assume going thirsty all day is the sine qua non of healthy living, and advise us all thusly.
lol.
^ Serves as a classic example of argumentum ad hominem. The next professor who writes a book on logic might want to utilize the above as a perfect explanatory example of this type of fallacious argument.
So, one supposes that if trump were to advise us all to drink 8 glasses of water a day for good health then theoria would immediately assume going thirsty all day is the sine qua non of healthy living, and advise us all thusly.
lol.
235John5918
US constitution is Amazon bestseller after speech criticising Trump (Guardian)
This has to be good news doesn't it, both for a book website and the world at large?
To many of us foreigners it seems strange that the USA has one of the best constitutions in the world (apart from the bit about guns!) but both the rhetoric and practice seems to have gone and still be going further and further away from the spirit of the constitution. I also hear this same view from many of my US friends and colleagues.
This has to be good news doesn't it, both for a book website and the world at large?
To many of us foreigners it seems strange that the USA has one of the best constitutions in the world (apart from the bit about guns!) but both the rhetoric and practice seems to have gone and still be going further and further away from the spirit of the constitution. I also hear this same view from many of my US friends and colleagues.
236RickHarsch
I think no militia has proven itself to be well-regulated thereby nullifying the guaranteed right of the 2nd amendment.
237krazy4katz
>236 RickHarsch: I agree. The reliance on the 2nd amendment for gun rights seems to be a real stretch. Anyway, the last time states had well-regulated militias to fight against the federal government was the Civil War in 1861 and look how that turned out!
238John5918
>236 RickHarsch:, >237 krazy4katz:
In modern times a militia is almost always unregulated, by its very nature. I have had frequent close encounters of a kind I would rather not have had with many militias over the last three decades, and I have certainly never come across a "well-regulated" one.
In modern times a militia is almost always unregulated, by its very nature. I have had frequent close encounters of a kind I would rather not have had with many militias over the last three decades, and I have certainly never come across a "well-regulated" one.
239southernbooklady
>235 John5918: but both the rhetoric and practice seems to have gone and still be going further and further away from the spirit of the constitution.
The general American take on the Constitution is that what isn't specifically forbidden is allowed. In fact, the only way to tell that something is or should be forbidden, is to try it and see if it survives the legal challenges. It allows for more flexibility in society and for more forward momentum, but it does mean that "the law" is often regarded as an obstacle to be gotten around, rather than a series of codified values the society deems important and worth living by.
I'd say Trump epitomizes this attitude, but of course every politician is infected by it to some degree. The Constitution, if Trump thinks about it at all, is not something to defend, but something to be put up with, maneuvered around, circumvented. It is a check on the exercise of power.
The general American take on the Constitution is that what isn't specifically forbidden is allowed. In fact, the only way to tell that something is or should be forbidden, is to try it and see if it survives the legal challenges. It allows for more flexibility in society and for more forward momentum, but it does mean that "the law" is often regarded as an obstacle to be gotten around, rather than a series of codified values the society deems important and worth living by.
I'd say Trump epitomizes this attitude, but of course every politician is infected by it to some degree. The Constitution, if Trump thinks about it at all, is not something to defend, but something to be put up with, maneuvered around, circumvented. It is a check on the exercise of power.
240artturnerjr
>235 John5918:
Ooh! Can I get the special expanded edition that Donald Trump has? Y'know, the one with twelve articles?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hell-protect-constitutions-article-x...
Ooh! Can I get the special expanded edition that Donald Trump has? Y'know, the one with twelve articles?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hell-protect-constitutions-article-x...
241proximity1
>239 southernbooklady:
..."I'd say Trump epitomizes this attitude, but of course every politician is infected by it to some degree. The Constitution, if Trump thinks about it at all, is not something to defend, but something to be put up with, maneuvered around, circumvented. It is a check on the exercise of power."
I think that the actual facts and evidence indicate quite the contrary as far as which of these two takes the most cavalier attitude toward his or her legal and constitutional responsibilities.
For one thing, Clinton has not only read the law and constitution she flouts, she's a trained lawyer and, thus, an "officer of the court"--like Obama.
None of us has any solid basis for knowing what Trump would do once he'd been properly informed.
We don't have the luxury of this doubt in Clinton's case.
Who, now, can seriously blame her for holding the firm conviction that she is indeed and in fact "above the law"?
..."I'd say Trump epitomizes this attitude, but of course every politician is infected by it to some degree. The Constitution, if Trump thinks about it at all, is not something to defend, but something to be put up with, maneuvered around, circumvented. It is a check on the exercise of power."
I think that the actual facts and evidence indicate quite the contrary as far as which of these two takes the most cavalier attitude toward his or her legal and constitutional responsibilities.
For one thing, Clinton has not only read the law and constitution she flouts, she's a trained lawyer and, thus, an "officer of the court"--like Obama.
None of us has any solid basis for knowing what Trump would do once he'd been properly informed.
We don't have the luxury of this doubt in Clinton's case.
Who, now, can seriously blame her for holding the firm conviction that she is indeed and in fact "above the law"?
242timspalding
The "militia" clause is problematic. But as District of Columbia v. Heller found, the "purpose clause" was not a restrictive one. The "militia" were all able-bodied men ("the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home"). The Founders worried about the government disarming the people. The history of the text makes it clear it was understood as a individual right, not a right pertaining to some licensed military body. Maybe that's outdated.
If so, change the Constitution. The Constitution is not perfect document. You don't need to love everything in it, or every conclusion you reach about it. Indeed, the mark of an adult Constitutional theory is that you don't love all your conclusions. If you did, it wouldn't be a Constitutional theory; it would be childish wish-fulfillment.
As a thought experiment, consider the rest of the Bill of Rights by the sort of arguments levied against the Second Amendment. The Founders didn't know about the damage that modern guns could inflict? Okay, what about the First Amendment? Freedom of "speech" was only as far as you could yell; freedom of the press was a matter of slow-pressing expensive paper sheets on clumsy metal surfaces. Newspapers were slow and owned by responsible, monied people. Books were out of reach for all but the rich.
Today? Television and radio have transformed "speech" and "press"—the internet giving citizens and their bad ideas a spread inconceivable in 1789! The internet is the speech equivalent of a fully-automatic AK-47. Ban it!
We haven't gone that way. We've gone the other way. Rather, the guarantee of "free speech" is now understood to guarantee the freedom to dance naked for money. By that analogy, the Second Amendment should protect our right to personal nuclear weapons… :)
If so, change the Constitution. The Constitution is not perfect document. You don't need to love everything in it, or every conclusion you reach about it. Indeed, the mark of an adult Constitutional theory is that you don't love all your conclusions. If you did, it wouldn't be a Constitutional theory; it would be childish wish-fulfillment.
As a thought experiment, consider the rest of the Bill of Rights by the sort of arguments levied against the Second Amendment. The Founders didn't know about the damage that modern guns could inflict? Okay, what about the First Amendment? Freedom of "speech" was only as far as you could yell; freedom of the press was a matter of slow-pressing expensive paper sheets on clumsy metal surfaces. Newspapers were slow and owned by responsible, monied people. Books were out of reach for all but the rich.
Today? Television and radio have transformed "speech" and "press"—the internet giving citizens and their bad ideas a spread inconceivable in 1789! The internet is the speech equivalent of a fully-automatic AK-47. Ban it!
We haven't gone that way. We've gone the other way. Rather, the guarantee of "free speech" is now understood to guarantee the freedom to dance naked for money. By that analogy, the Second Amendment should protect our right to personal nuclear weapons… :)
243krazy4katz
>241 proximity1: Casting aside (for the moment) your criticisms of Clinton because I don't know how to evaluate them, I must say that Trump is quite unique in being the most unprepared person to become president of the United States in my memory and in history. Do I recall correctly that Truman was a haberdasher? He did OK even though in retrospect there are some things I wish he had done differently. I have disagreed with the policies of many Republicans over the years but no one is as unfit, inconsistent and downright tone deaf as Trump. I doubt "informing" him is going to help. If he isn't informed already, it is hopeless.
244krazy4katz
>242 timspalding: I haven't studied this as well as you apparently have, but what do you think "well regulated" meant in the original context?
245timspalding
Here's the full argument, with dissent https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It's a standard concept and right, adopted in various forms in many states. Have we outgrown the concept of citizens using their personal arms against external enemies, internal rebellion or tyrannical government? Maybe. But that's really an argument against it. It's an argument to change it.
It's a standard concept and right, adopted in various forms in many states. Have we outgrown the concept of citizens using their personal arms against external enemies, internal rebellion or tyrannical government? Maybe. But that's really an argument against it. It's an argument to change it.
246RickHarsch
>241 proximity1: More constructive than the reflexive comparisons to Clinton when Trump is criticized, which mean nothing given the sheer ugliness of Trump and Trumpism, why not accept that Trump is worse and when Clinton is elected, work to get her impeached?
247theoria
>246 RickHarsch: Vichy Progressives have incorporated the Fox News modus operandi vis-a-vis Clinton.
248RickHarsch
Well put, theoria
249proximity1
>242 timspalding: makes some very good points. Perhaps the link (which I haven't yet looked into) mentions this factor which Tim didn't bring up directly :
the early United States didn't even have a standing army and that was deliberately so, not the result of an oversight on the founders' part.
The continental army defeated a professional standing army. That this was partly due to good luck and that the victory turned on events that might have easily gone differently doesn't change the fact that the founders considered standing armies as inherently dangerous--too dangerous to be tolerated. And yet, they did not proscribe them formally in the text of the constitution. I think that's one of their most serious mistakes but I also suppose that this would have been amended out of the constitution eventually. That's a potential, however, in any of its proscriptions.
By the way, the First Amendment's rights have been in a de facto manner "repealed," made a dead-letter in law without any of the formal requirements of amendment. The Congress' sacred and sole prerogative to determine when, where, how and with which governments the United States are at war? Similarly junked.
Originally, not only did going to war require a formal declaration from Congress, but the government also had to call up this militia Tim's post refers to. Even in 1790, that could be done quickly enough if the cause was justified. But for trivial or blatantly unjust causes it could prove to be anything from difficult to impossible --and that's the way the founders wanted it. "What if they gave a war and nobody (or too few) showed up?" occurred to the founders. They understood that in any case of genuine need, the states' militia would defend the state and federal governments--which were to be mutually dependent on them.
There's another key phrase in the constitution which we've stupidly made a habit of ignoring--it comes at Article II, section 2, ..." when called into the actual service of the United States;"....
Today, we drone on and on about "the commander-in-chief," constantly referring to the president as "commander-in-chief." This stupid habit has even seen the phrase come to be used as a synonym for "the president of the United States." But the original intent saw the president holding that role only temporarily--only while the militia were actually called up. He was not the commander-in-chief twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Cue the chorus of "But!, but!, but! ..."
the early United States didn't even have a standing army and that was deliberately so, not the result of an oversight on the founders' part.
The continental army defeated a professional standing army. That this was partly due to good luck and that the victory turned on events that might have easily gone differently doesn't change the fact that the founders considered standing armies as inherently dangerous--too dangerous to be tolerated. And yet, they did not proscribe them formally in the text of the constitution. I think that's one of their most serious mistakes but I also suppose that this would have been amended out of the constitution eventually. That's a potential, however, in any of its proscriptions.
By the way, the First Amendment's rights have been in a de facto manner "repealed," made a dead-letter in law without any of the formal requirements of amendment. The Congress' sacred and sole prerogative to determine when, where, how and with which governments the United States are at war? Similarly junked.
Originally, not only did going to war require a formal declaration from Congress, but the government also had to call up this militia Tim's post refers to. Even in 1790, that could be done quickly enough if the cause was justified. But for trivial or blatantly unjust causes it could prove to be anything from difficult to impossible --and that's the way the founders wanted it. "What if they gave a war and nobody (or too few) showed up?" occurred to the founders. They understood that in any case of genuine need, the states' militia would defend the state and federal governments--which were to be mutually dependent on them.
There's another key phrase in the constitution which we've stupidly made a habit of ignoring--it comes at Article II, section 2, ..." when called into the actual service of the United States;"....
Today, we drone on and on about "the commander-in-chief," constantly referring to the president as "commander-in-chief." This stupid habit has even seen the phrase come to be used as a synonym for "the president of the United States." But the original intent saw the president holding that role only temporarily--only while the militia were actually called up. He was not the commander-in-chief twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Cue the chorus of "But!, but!, but! ..."
250Jesse_wiedinmyer
https://shop.aclu.org/product/ACLU-Pocket-Constitution-of-the-United-States
Free (and free shipping) for the next couple of months.
Free (and free shipping) for the next couple of months.
251proximity1
>1 timspalding:
... " Personally. I want Trump to not merely lose, but lose disastrously, leading Republicans up and down the ballot into a historic route. Only such a defeat will discredit "Trumpism" within the party. It's gotta die for it to live again.
"It looks increasingly likely that'll happen, right?"
At just under 100 days to election-day, unless there's a very big course-changing event in the meantime, it seems to me very unlikely that you're going to get your wish.
So, no, Trump's "los(ing) disastrously" does not look likely to happen.
The race almost certainly is going to be hard-won whichever way it goes.
But you may be mistaken in supposing that only a disastrous rout could put "paid" to the future of Trumpism. If Trump loses, his defeat, whatever the margin, may spell the end of Trump-style Republican party life.
252jjwilson61
>249 proximity1: the early United States didn't even have a standing army and that was deliberately so, not the result of an oversight on the founders' part
Depends which founders you're talking about. The Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, Adams,) wanted a standing army while the Democrat-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) did not. If I remember correctly Washington created a small standing army to fight the Whiskey Rebellion and it was used to fight Indians in the interior but Jefferson disbanded it when the Federalists lost power.
ETA: I just finished Empire of liberty : a history of the early Republic, 1789-1815
Depends which founders you're talking about. The Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, Adams,) wanted a standing army while the Democrat-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) did not. If I remember correctly Washington created a small standing army to fight the Whiskey Rebellion and it was used to fight Indians in the interior but Jefferson disbanded it when the Federalists lost power.
ETA: I just finished Empire of liberty : a history of the early Republic, 1789-1815
253jjwilson61
>249 proximity1: Not to mention the Commerce Clause which has been stretched way beyond any rational interpretation. But there's no going back, eh.
254artturnerjr
My favorite news story of the last few days:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/poll-clinton-trump-dnc-2016-226507
"While 36 percent of adults are more likely to support Trump coming out of the GOP’s four-day event, 51 percent are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul after it. The minus-15 net rating is the worst mark for the Republican nominee coming out of the party’s convention since Gallup began asking the question in 1984"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/poll-clinton-trump-dnc-2016-226507
"While 36 percent of adults are more likely to support Trump coming out of the GOP’s four-day event, 51 percent are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul after it. The minus-15 net rating is the worst mark for the Republican nominee coming out of the party’s convention since Gallup began asking the question in 1984"
255theoria
>254 artturnerjr: Republicans tried to win the last two Presidential elections on the basis of white working class (male) voters. They lost both times. There's no indication this strategy will work in 2016 despite the presence of the most openly xenophobic and misogynistic candidate in modern US history.
256proximity1
>254 artturnerjr:
Unfortunately, you have to presume that those net 15% (whose views of Trump were more negative post convention) are actually going to translate into votes _for_ Clinton rather than abstentions in November. But you have no good reason to do this.
Take the average viewer who, since the primaries and before the Rep. party convention, was seriously entertaining the idea of voting for Trump. If he (or she) found something to lead him (or her) to look less favorably upon Trump only after the convention, why is he (or she), by that token, likely to vote for Clinton at all?
You need a good answer to that question and I don't think you have one.
>255 theoria:
"Republicans tried to win the last two Presidential elections on the basis of white working class (male) voters. They lost both times."
-- assumes (incorrectly) that Trump's candidacy and strategy resemble those examples and shall fail for the reasons they failed.
Trump eliminated those types of Republican candidates in winning the nomination. This is not a re-run of "the last two Presidential elections" and, unlike you, Trump understands that.
Unfortunately, you have to presume that those net 15% (whose views of Trump were more negative post convention) are actually going to translate into votes _for_ Clinton rather than abstentions in November. But you have no good reason to do this.
Take the average viewer who, since the primaries and before the Rep. party convention, was seriously entertaining the idea of voting for Trump. If he (or she) found something to lead him (or her) to look less favorably upon Trump only after the convention, why is he (or she), by that token, likely to vote for Clinton at all?
You need a good answer to that question and I don't think you have one.
>255 theoria:
"Republicans tried to win the last two Presidential elections on the basis of white working class (male) voters. They lost both times."
-- assumes (incorrectly) that Trump's candidacy and strategy resemble those examples and shall fail for the reasons they failed.
Trump eliminated those types of Republican candidates in winning the nomination. This is not a re-run of "the last two Presidential elections" and, unlike you, Trump understands that.
257artturnerjr
>255 theoria:
Oh, his xenophobia and misogyny (not to bring in his pathological narcissism and fascist leanings) are off-putting for a fair amount of white working-class males, too, namely yours truly (although, unlike a lot of my peers, I'm college-educated, which would seem to be a crucial difference). Agreed, though, that it's a losing strategy - the US is getting more demographically diverse, not less so. Reminds me of the saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. :)
Oh, his xenophobia and misogyny (not to bring in his pathological narcissism and fascist leanings) are off-putting for a fair amount of white working-class males, too, namely yours truly (although, unlike a lot of my peers, I'm college-educated, which would seem to be a crucial difference). Agreed, though, that it's a losing strategy - the US is getting more demographically diverse, not less so. Reminds me of the saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. :)
258jjwilson61
>254 artturnerjr: "While 36 percent of adults are more likely to support Trump coming out of the GOP’s four-day event, 51 percent are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul after it. The minus-15 net rating is the worst mark for the Republican nominee coming out of the party’s convention since Gallup began asking the question in 1984"
That's a real hard stat to determine what it really means on the ground. It could be that those 51% who are less likely to vote for Trump were already not going to vote for Trump. They just dislike Trump a bit more now which doesn't change the outcome of the election in any way.
That's a real hard stat to determine what it really means on the ground. It could be that those 51% who are less likely to vote for Trump were already not going to vote for Trump. They just dislike Trump a bit more now which doesn't change the outcome of the election in any way.
260lriley
This made me laugh--but I think there's a lot to this premise:
http://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html?nhp=1
http://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html?nhp=1
261artturnerjr
>258 jjwilson61:
Agreed, but if Trump doesn't quit digging himself in a hole (as with this ridiculous feud he's having with the Khan family, to choose only one of numerous available examples), it could be a very accurate harbinger of things to come for him in particular and the Republicans in general.
>260 lriley:
I am absolutely convinced Trump has narcissistic personality disorder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/trump-and-narcissistic-pe_b_11289332...
Agreed, but if Trump doesn't quit digging himself in a hole (as with this ridiculous feud he's having with the Khan family, to choose only one of numerous available examples), it could be a very accurate harbinger of things to come for him in particular and the Republicans in general.
>260 lriley:
I am absolutely convinced Trump has narcissistic personality disorder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/trump-and-narcissistic-pe_b_11289332...
262proximity1
"To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity"
Los Angeles Times
by Justin Raimondo
"Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?
"My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a 'fact check' that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as 'historic,' 'inspiring' and 'trailblazing.' A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.
"This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has (sic) long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.
"To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit 'espionage' against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger 'national security'? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that 'the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.' Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?"
••• ••• •••
"Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says 'I’m with her' for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.
"Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration."
--------
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author of “
Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.”
----------
Why Clinton Can't Shake Trump | The Democratic party runs a considerable risk of overestimating its own attractiveness
By T. A. Frank | August 2, 2016
••• - ••• - •••
... "But I must admit, for what the feelings of one viewer are worth, I also found the pageant of Philadelphia alienating. While I’m mostly a caricature of blue-state America—sharing most of its enthusiasms, habits, and tastes—millions of my fellow citizens want to live quite differently, and I suppose, as blue-state America celebrated itself on-screen, I felt their pain. For a long time now, red-state America has been losing the culture wars, steadily, and sometimes quickly. Its people are in a defensive crouch. And, because the losers are seen as defenders of the indefensible, those on the winning side tend to view them with scorn and smugness. There was more of that in Philadelphia than most Democrats seemed to notice.
"The Republican convention undeniably came across as divisive, both because of many small things ('Lock her up!') and the larger focus on immigration restriction, a policy plank that’s hard to make friendly-looking, whether you support it or not. But the insistence in Philadelphia that Democrats represent harmony and inclusion often brought to mind less the Beatles on a BBC “Our World” satellite broadcast in 1967 and more the Ministry of Love on a bender in 1984. This wasn’t lessened when Obama dismissed the Republican convention as a parade of 'resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate' or when a gaggle of Broadway stars belted out 'What the world needs now, is love sweet love' as if it were a weapon. At a time when many splits among Americans resemble war more than disagreement, and the left has been as happy as the right to stoke rage and hound people out of jobs or public life, neither side gets to call itself the party of love. At least not without being insufferable.
"We are divided these days, badly so, and along more and more lines. Obama has not changed that. As fine as his intentions are—and I do think they are good—his efforts to broker agreement across our worst divides have often exacerbated them. We have a lot of 'conversations' about identity nowadays—The New York Times opinion editors would be hopelessly at a loss for op-ed ideas if we stopped—but how often is a focus on irreconcilable differences the key to unity? How many couples can say they get along best when debating, say, gender roles? There were many schisms in Philadelphia, many resentments, so many that even during a moment of silence for slain police someone broke it with a cry of 'Black Lives Matter!'
"Democrats tried to look happier than Republicans in Cleveland, more unified and triumphant, more in tune with the arc of history, but I’m not sure they succeeded. ...
... But at the end of the day the Democratic National Convention, complete with its Hollywood stars, came across as a group of people overestimating their own attractiveness. The old verities aren’t delivering the promised prosperity or dignity for everyone, and millions of Americans are ready to try something else. If Clinton makes it into the Oval Office, she’ll postpone, but not forestall, bigger realignments.
“ 'I have to say this,' said Obama during his convention speech. 'People outside of the United States do not understand what’s going on in this election. They really don’t.' But the trouble is that neither do many inside the United States. And this election shows we don’t have much time left to learn."
263RickHarsch
>262 proximity1: I have not forgotten the craven idolatry of the press during the Bush years, when a vigorous independent press could have made the war in Iraq a more difficult jaunt to sell. Now when there is every reason for every person to fear a Trump presidency the press is scrutinized and found wanting...Clinton. First, all newspapers choose a candidate; second, the scrutiny of Trump has thus far been weak enough. I also saw some fact checking by a highly regarded objective organization that checked a Trump--full of lies; and a Clinton, which had two inaccuracies. People outside the US are laughing, laughing a lot--everybody wants to talk to me about Trump (after, Melania is from here) because the subject is enough for riotous laughter to break out...
264artturnerjr
>263 RickHarsch:
People outside the US are laughing, laughing a lot--everybody wants to talk to me about Trump (after, Melania is from here) because the subject is enough for riotous laughter to break out...
Oh, I have no doubt. To paraphrase the current POTUS slightly, this shit would be really hilarious if we weren't in the middle of it. :/
People outside the US are laughing, laughing a lot--everybody wants to talk to me about Trump (after, Melania is from here) because the subject is enough for riotous laughter to break out...
Oh, I have no doubt. To paraphrase the current POTUS slightly, this shit would be really hilarious if we weren't in the middle of it. :/
265JGL53
Well, this one got reported. How many incidences like this go unreported, do ya think?
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/clinton-trump-battery-029843
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/clinton-trump-battery-029843
266RickHarsch
> 265 We may look back on this and say say, 'That's when it was still illegal.'
267Crypto-Willobie
Pence breaks with Trump?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-pence-breaks-donald-trump-strongly-support-p...
Will he end up leading a pre-palace coup?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-pence-breaks-donald-trump-strongly-support-p...
Will he end up leading a pre-palace coup?
268RickHarsch
Pence is apparently smart enough not to lose his career to Trump.
269margd
Trump's failure to support Paul Ryan smacks of revenge once again--he uses the same words Ryan did in mulling support for Trump, “I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country. We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’M NOT QUITE THERE YET.”
(At this point, there might be some benefit for Ryan in NOT having Trump's support?)
(At this point, there might be some benefit for Ryan in NOT having Trump's support?)
270proximity1
How ironic!
Imagine for a moment that both Trump and Ryan win the seats to which they aspire.
We'd find ourselves in novel political circumstamces.
For one thing, despite their ostensibly belonging to the same political party, the president and the Speaker of the House of Representatives would have very different ideas about political priorities and about how to achieve even those objectives on which they did agree!
For another, we'd be treated to the spectacle of a president who is neither politically an intellectual light-weight nor a fucking push-over--one prepared to go bare-knuckles with the Speaker.
After eight years of Obama's limp "leadership," the contrast could hardly fail to be striking.
Ordinary citizens would be hard-pressed in witnessing such political drama not to ask themselves why Obama couldn't have demonstrated some similar back-bone faced with a majority in Congress which didn't like him.
The country could dearly use some more mature and accurate appraisal of the Obama tenure in the White House to correct the ridiculously admiring view this fucking failure now unjustly enjoys.
If, on the other hand, Countess Dracula is elected, despite her being the financial establishment's hand-picked and paid-for choice, its veritable dream-come-true, she--and we along with her as hostages--would find herself right back at Washington grid-lock's "Square One" since the superficial party differences make this charade a requirement of the play-acting.
Trump & Ryan, in contrast, would have no such "built-in" excuse not to get along. Their fights would be genuine!
Imagine for a moment that both Trump and Ryan win the seats to which they aspire.
We'd find ourselves in novel political circumstamces.
For one thing, despite their ostensibly belonging to the same political party, the president and the Speaker of the House of Representatives would have very different ideas about political priorities and about how to achieve even those objectives on which they did agree!
For another, we'd be treated to the spectacle of a president who is neither politically an intellectual light-weight nor a fucking push-over--one prepared to go bare-knuckles with the Speaker.
After eight years of Obama's limp "leadership," the contrast could hardly fail to be striking.
Ordinary citizens would be hard-pressed in witnessing such political drama not to ask themselves why Obama couldn't have demonstrated some similar back-bone faced with a majority in Congress which didn't like him.
The country could dearly use some more mature and accurate appraisal of the Obama tenure in the White House to correct the ridiculously admiring view this fucking failure now unjustly enjoys.
If, on the other hand, Countess Dracula is elected, despite her being the financial establishment's hand-picked and paid-for choice, its veritable dream-come-true, she--and we along with her as hostages--would find herself right back at Washington grid-lock's "Square One" since the superficial party differences make this charade a requirement of the play-acting.
Trump & Ryan, in contrast, would have no such "built-in" excuse not to get along. Their fights would be genuine!
271artturnerjr
Trump’s Ambiguous Wink Wink to ‘Second Amendment People’
http://nyti.ms/2bhJBlF
...in which Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman echoes the sentiments expressed by our OP (and OG!) Mr. Spalding:
Forget politics; {Trump} is a disgusting human being. His children should be ashamed of him. I only pray that he is not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states so that the message goes out across the land — unambiguously, loud and clear: The likes of you should never come this way again.
http://nyti.ms/2bhJBlF
...in which Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman echoes the sentiments expressed by our OP (and OG!) Mr. Spalding:
Forget politics; {Trump} is a disgusting human being. His children should be ashamed of him. I only pray that he is not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states so that the message goes out across the land — unambiguously, loud and clear: The likes of you should never come this way again.
272theoria
>271 artturnerjr: He's gone from suborning foreign espionage to soliciting political assassination.
273artturnerjr
>272 theoria:
And it's only August! Imagine what kind of crazy shit he's going to be saying in October. The mind boggles.
And it's only August! Imagine what kind of crazy shit he's going to be saying in October. The mind boggles.
275lriley
I really don't give a rat's ass whether Trump or Ryan support each other or not. I don't want either one of them elected in November. I don't want Clinton either.......so that's a dilemma for me. All I can say is I don't think the immediate future (as in the next 4 years anyway) of our country bodes very well.
Trump standing up to Ryan if he's still speaker or leader of the Republican house? Yeah if Trump actually wins and I doubt very seriously that's going to happen--but if he did I could see him standing up to Ryan. The real question is whether Trump's displays of pomposity will do him any good with Ryan? I don't think so. He's a blustering idiot and I don't think his own party is going to work very hard for Trump if somehow he does gets elected.
Trump standing up to Ryan if he's still speaker or leader of the Republican house? Yeah if Trump actually wins and I doubt very seriously that's going to happen--but if he did I could see him standing up to Ryan. The real question is whether Trump's displays of pomposity will do him any good with Ryan? I don't think so. He's a blustering idiot and I don't think his own party is going to work very hard for Trump if somehow he does gets elected.
277artturnerjr
>276 davidgn:
That's an amusing piece. I'm not a big Friedman fan - attempted to read The World is Flat and gave up in boredom after about 20 pages. But I am very much in agreement with the passage I quoted. Mere victory over Trump is not enough, IMHO. This is not some boring careerist right-winger like John McCain or Mitt Romney. This guy is a borderline sociopath; a truly humiliating public-square beat-down is, in this case, both needed and deserved.
That's an amusing piece. I'm not a big Friedman fan - attempted to read The World is Flat and gave up in boredom after about 20 pages. But I am very much in agreement with the passage I quoted. Mere victory over Trump is not enough, IMHO. This is not some boring careerist right-winger like John McCain or Mitt Romney. This guy is a borderline sociopath; a truly humiliating public-square beat-down is, in this case, both needed and deserved.
278proximity1
The news media's bias against Trump is so overt, so far beyond the pale, that it has become a topic of worried discussion in the press.
The point that too many are failing to grasp is that the same press which many don't mind at all seeing sabotage Trump's campaign--and they have: his words have been wildly and maliciously misrepresented--easily can and does do the same to candidates you might very much approve.
Any system which prevents, precludes, the voters from doing whatever an elite and powerful press-corps considers to be a blunder is neither free nor democratic. The right to self-government implies the right to choose and even to make a regrettable mistake. God knows the elite would not tolerate for a moment that freedom being infringed where it applies to themselves.
279lriley
#278--I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean I was anyone but Clinton or even Bernie or bust. IMO Stein is far superior at least in what she says and even Johnson would be a much better alternative than either Clinton or Trump. Somehow I think in the back of your mind even you think Trump if he were to become POTUS is going to be a major catastrophe and on an epic scale.
As far as media bias--Trump has used the media throughout the process at least as much as the media has used him. Have they turned on him? Well---maybe. But when someone continually says nothing but stupid shit it's hard not to.
To go further I wouldn't give Clinton a pass on our mideast wars or her neo-liberal economics because she's always supported that but what Trump promises is the same if not worse. He's even right out front on why we should torture people. What Hillary says about fracking now I really don't believe because of the money she's taken from these companies and what she's supported in the past but Trump is coming along with his energy solutions and pretty much saying he's going to frack the shit out of this country. Sorry but no thanks. He ain't for me.
As far as media bias--Trump has used the media throughout the process at least as much as the media has used him. Have they turned on him? Well---maybe. But when someone continually says nothing but stupid shit it's hard not to.
To go further I wouldn't give Clinton a pass on our mideast wars or her neo-liberal economics because she's always supported that but what Trump promises is the same if not worse. He's even right out front on why we should torture people. What Hillary says about fracking now I really don't believe because of the money she's taken from these companies and what she's supported in the past but Trump is coming along with his energy solutions and pretty much saying he's going to frack the shit out of this country. Sorry but no thanks. He ain't for me.
280LolaWalser
>275 lriley:
You don't give a rat's ass about the fate of blacks and immigrants (remember sneering at the idea that you should worry about Trump because of what "some black guy" fears? I do.), and now you don't give a rat's ass about a woman being threatened with assassination by the man running for your President. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about you and your rat-ass opinions?
>276 davidgn:
"Color you unimpressed"? That's your comment, on having a POTUS candidate stoke assassination fantasies? Seriously? What would "impress" you, a successful assassination?
You don't give a rat's ass about the fate of blacks and immigrants (remember sneering at the idea that you should worry about Trump because of what "some black guy" fears? I do.), and now you don't give a rat's ass about a woman being threatened with assassination by the man running for your President. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about you and your rat-ass opinions?
>276 davidgn:
"Color you unimpressed"? That's your comment, on having a POTUS candidate stoke assassination fantasies? Seriously? What would "impress" you, a successful assassination?
281jjwilson61
What I don't get is the Republicans who announce they won't vote for Trump say that they'll either vote for Hillary or won't vote at all? Why aren't choosing the Libertarians as a a better (in their view) alternative to Clinton? Is it because they think an empowered Libertarian party is more of a threat to the Republican party than a straight up loss to the Democrats (that is with Republicans still maintaining the number two position)?
282jjwilson61
>278 proximity1: The news media's bias against Trump is so overt, so far beyond the pale, that it has become a topic of worried discussion in the press.
But Trumps favorite technique has been to say outlandish things through innuendo so he can deny later that that's what he meant, yet it's obvious to everyone what he meant. Do you want the press to give him a free pass?
But Trumps favorite technique has been to say outlandish things through innuendo so he can deny later that that's what he meant, yet it's obvious to everyone what he meant. Do you want the press to give him a free pass?
283lriley
#280--where did I mention anything about assassination attempts? Why do you need to make things up?
284LolaWalser
>283 lriley:
No, that's the point--that even after someone posted about Trump's threats against Hillary, you IGNORED that, and banged on about how terrible is... CLINTON.
You do this all the time. Every fucking time Trump "improves" on his previous outrages, YOU bang on about the evil that is Clinton.
No, that's the point--that even after someone posted about Trump's threats against Hillary, you IGNORED that, and banged on about how terrible is... CLINTON.
You do this all the time. Every fucking time Trump "improves" on his previous outrages, YOU bang on about the evil that is Clinton.
285RickHarsch
>278 proximity1: Trump has been coddled by the press--an truly free press would have doomed his campaign. But the US has quite a fearful press. Bush took great advantage of this, and so now has Trump.
>280 LolaWalser: What a bizarre leap from >275 lriley:'s brief discussion of Trump and Ryan to the author of 275 not caring about a woman threatened with assassination. Rather perverse, I think, to use Trump's bizarre threat as a bludgeon against those who despise Trump. And I would love to revisit the context of lriley's 'some black guy' comment, for from what I read here he seems far form indifferent to the poor and minority.
>280 LolaWalser: What a bizarre leap from >275 lriley:'s brief discussion of Trump and Ryan to the author of 275 not caring about a woman threatened with assassination. Rather perverse, I think, to use Trump's bizarre threat as a bludgeon against those who despise Trump. And I would love to revisit the context of lriley's 'some black guy' comment, for from what I read here he seems far form indifferent to the poor and minority.
286proximity1
>282 jjwilson61:
You are ready to believe anything the press tells you about Trump--provided it's outrageous and serves to reinforce your preconceived notions of him as a monster. And the press, knowing this, are only too happy to feed your appetite for vilification of Trump.
But you never bought into the story about Trump ejecting a mother and her crying infant from a rally at which he was giving a speech, now did you! ? No sir! Not you! You went and checked out the facts instead--I'm sure!
Mom of crying baby at Trump rally sets record straight after ...
" Donald Trump accurately says media wrong that he kicked" ...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/08/donald-trump/dona...
" Trump is right: He didn't kick a baby out of a campaign rally ..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-d...
Trump is accused of treason-treason! --the press said he advocated that Russian intelligence agencies try to hack into Clinton's computers to find and then reveal her emails which were witheld as personal and unrelated to the F.B.I.'s probe. Bullshit.
He never did any such thing.
Trump is accused of slyly suggesting that fire-arm enthusiasts might resort to deadly violence against Clinton rather than allow her to appoint SCOTUS justices who'd be inclined to restrict gun sales and ownership. Bullshit.
Now, whenever I hear the next outrage about Trump, my first reaction is, "Yeah, right. I just bet he did/said that! Sure he did."
You are ready to believe anything the press tells you about Trump--provided it's outrageous and serves to reinforce your preconceived notions of him as a monster. And the press, knowing this, are only too happy to feed your appetite for vilification of Trump.
But you never bought into the story about Trump ejecting a mother and her crying infant from a rally at which he was giving a speech, now did you! ? No sir! Not you! You went and checked out the facts instead--I'm sure!
Mom of crying baby at Trump rally sets record straight after ...
" Donald Trump accurately says media wrong that he kicked" ...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/08/donald-trump/dona...
" Trump is right: He didn't kick a baby out of a campaign rally ..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-d...
Trump is accused of treason-treason! --the press said he advocated that Russian intelligence agencies try to hack into Clinton's computers to find and then reveal her emails which were witheld as personal and unrelated to the F.B.I.'s probe. Bullshit.
He never did any such thing.
Trump is accused of slyly suggesting that fire-arm enthusiasts might resort to deadly violence against Clinton rather than allow her to appoint SCOTUS justices who'd be inclined to restrict gun sales and ownership. Bullshit.
Now, whenever I hear the next outrage about Trump, my first reaction is, "Yeah, right. I just bet he did/said that! Sure he did."
287RickHarsch
>286 proximity1: Wow! How naive poor jjwilson is to believe--wait, do we know what jjwilson believes other than that Trump says outlandish things? Which stories does jjwilson believe and disbelieve. Does Proximity1 have this on file?
As for you, Proxy, or Trumproxy, or whatever you prefer to go by--how would I know? Trump may not have taken a dump on a child literally, as far as we know he has not publicly done so, but it does appear he would be pleased to take a big one on you and the rest of your countrymen.
As for you, Proxy, or Trumproxy, or whatever you prefer to go by--how would I know? Trump may not have taken a dump on a child literally, as far as we know he has not publicly done so, but it does appear he would be pleased to take a big one on you and the rest of your countrymen.
288jjwilson61
>286 proximity1: Whatever the truth of the matter, Trump has made so many reprehensible remarks that if it appears as if he made another one people, including journalists, are going to accept it at face value. If Clinton had made that remark reports probably would have scratched their heads wondering if she really meant that and probably would have found the alternative explanation. Trump doesn't get that benefit of the doubt from journalists, but that's not entirely the journalist's fault.
289proximity1
>288 jjwilson61:
Wrong. Your rationalizations won't cut it.
This isn't about "the benefit of the doubt."
The press are engaged in deliberate vilification and you eagerly eat up what they serve you--and make excuses for their doing it. Trump's words aren't misunderstood--they're taken deliberately out of context and distorted for sensational effect.
And you offer this bullshit :
"Whatever the truth of the matter, Trump has made so many reprehensible remarks that if it appears as if he made another one people, including journalists, are going to accept it at face value."
People like you deserve what you're going to get from the Clintons.
290RickHarsch
>289 proximity1: 'People like you deserve what you're going to get from the Clintons.' OUCH! So is this what they meant by the political spectrum being a circle? The leftist supporting Trump?
291lriley
#284--Just FYI sometimes I don't read every post in a thread. Sometimes I just look for ones that address me. Sometimes I don't even read your posts. Sorry (not really)--but it's true.
Anyway bizarre is the right word for #280 and I have to say if I had made such a leap as you did and insinuated what you seemed to insinuate I'd be feeling a little embarrassed right now. But that's okay--people are free to think and say whatever they want.
Any case last time I looked at my cellphone I didn't see Donald Trump's name amongst my contacts. And it's been a while since he's been over to the house. He used to come looking for advice but no more--not since I told him not to run--I told him he might fire a lot of people up but generally most people wouldn't understand him--might even think he was an idiot. I told him we needed a National Health care system and to raise the minimum wage and to wipe out student debt but all he would say was 'freeloaders'. I'd say end the war on drugs and empty the prisons and all he would say was 'criminals'. Bring the troops home? He didn't care. He was always staring off into space. It was like we weren't talking to each other but at each other. Sometimes I get the same feeling talking to you. I could tell you some things about Donald that might astonish you. When he used to come over I was always trying to give him an IPA but he only ever wanted the cheap stuff. He's a Miller/Budweiser kind of guy. He'd wonder where my maid was---I was always telling him it was her day off--didn't want to tell him I couldn't afford one. You wouldn't believe how much beer he can pack away without going to the toilet. 3-4 six packs and then he'd leave in his Rolls Royce. Always backing out of the driveway--on our hill with all it's twists and turns--that's dangerous. Only one time did he use my toilet---but passing through the bedroom he saw the bed was unmade and he didn't approve of my toilet seat--it was just your average seat you might get at Lowe's or Home Depot. Anyway I'm happy he never used it again because he left shitstains on the bowl.
I guess this my way of telling you I'm not responsible for Donald Trump or the things he does or the things he says and if you took the time to peruse #279 you will see the remark about his continually saying stupid shit.
Anyway bizarre is the right word for #280 and I have to say if I had made such a leap as you did and insinuated what you seemed to insinuate I'd be feeling a little embarrassed right now. But that's okay--people are free to think and say whatever they want.
Any case last time I looked at my cellphone I didn't see Donald Trump's name amongst my contacts. And it's been a while since he's been over to the house. He used to come looking for advice but no more--not since I told him not to run--I told him he might fire a lot of people up but generally most people wouldn't understand him--might even think he was an idiot. I told him we needed a National Health care system and to raise the minimum wage and to wipe out student debt but all he would say was 'freeloaders'. I'd say end the war on drugs and empty the prisons and all he would say was 'criminals'. Bring the troops home? He didn't care. He was always staring off into space. It was like we weren't talking to each other but at each other. Sometimes I get the same feeling talking to you. I could tell you some things about Donald that might astonish you. When he used to come over I was always trying to give him an IPA but he only ever wanted the cheap stuff. He's a Miller/Budweiser kind of guy. He'd wonder where my maid was---I was always telling him it was her day off--didn't want to tell him I couldn't afford one. You wouldn't believe how much beer he can pack away without going to the toilet. 3-4 six packs and then he'd leave in his Rolls Royce. Always backing out of the driveway--on our hill with all it's twists and turns--that's dangerous. Only one time did he use my toilet---but passing through the bedroom he saw the bed was unmade and he didn't approve of my toilet seat--it was just your average seat you might get at Lowe's or Home Depot. Anyway I'm happy he never used it again because he left shitstains on the bowl.
I guess this my way of telling you I'm not responsible for Donald Trump or the things he does or the things he says and if you took the time to peruse #279 you will see the remark about his continually saying stupid shit.
292davidgn
>280 LolaWalser: Sorry you chose to misinterpret my reflexive expression of agony at the mention of Friedman -- in particular, the placement of his name in the same vicinity as the word "Pulitzer." It hurts like a bad toothache. Fortunately, I have more clove oil socked away. In particular: Dolan's classic evisceration from 2000 is brilliantly complemented by these subsequent salvos from his erstwhile comrade Taibbi
.
https://longform.org/posts/flathead - 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20090117113134/http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-... - 2009
And if that's not enough, I think I just stumbled upon the clove oil motherlode! http://jilliancyork.com/2011/12/14/the-definitive-collection-of-thomas-friedman-...
.
https://longform.org/posts/flathead - 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20090117113134/http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-... - 2009
And if that's not enough, I think I just stumbled upon the clove oil motherlode! http://jilliancyork.com/2011/12/14/the-definitive-collection-of-thomas-friedman-...
293davidgn
>280 LolaWalser: If we're keeping score, though, I don't suppose you have any recollection of that time when Hillary sounded a similar note, way back in 2008? Keith Olbermann nailed it at the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y
No, I don't suppose anyone remembers that one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y
No, I don't suppose anyone remembers that one...
294RickHarsch
>293 davidgn: I remember it well, particularly from Olbermann's commentary.
295St._Troy
>289 proximity1:
"The press are engaged in deliberate vilification...Trump's words aren't misunderstood--they're taken deliberately out of context and distorted for sensational effect.
And you offer this...:
'Whatever the truth of the matter, Trump has made so many reprehensible remarks that if it appears as if he made another one people, including journalists, are going to accept it at face value.'
People like you deserve what you're going to get from the Clintons. "
proximity1's distillation of the current anti-Trump press effort is the best I've seen. +1, nice job.
"The press are engaged in deliberate vilification...Trump's words aren't misunderstood--they're taken deliberately out of context and distorted for sensational effect.
And you offer this...:
'Whatever the truth of the matter, Trump has made so many reprehensible remarks that if it appears as if he made another one people, including journalists, are going to accept it at face value.'
People like you deserve what you're going to get from the Clintons. "
proximity1's distillation of the current anti-Trump press effort is the best I've seen. +1, nice job.
296jjwilson61
>289 proximity1: Wrong. Your rationalizations won't cut it.
This isn't about "the benefit of the doubt."
The press are engaged in deliberate vilification
And yet again you display an amazing ability to know what's in the mind of "the press" (as if it's one unified mind).
This isn't about "the benefit of the doubt."
The press are engaged in deliberate vilification
And yet again you display an amazing ability to know what's in the mind of "the press" (as if it's one unified mind).
297SomeGuyInVirginia
A really appealing pop-up candidate could take this thing. Joe Biden could win. Tim Kaine could win. Hillary can't win. Trump could win.
298JGL53
> 293
".....If we're keeping score .....Hillary sounded a similar note, way back in 2008 ...Keith Olbermann nailed it at the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y ..... I don't suppose anyone remembers that one..."
Well, I too remember it. The actual video of one of the many times she mentioned the possibility of Obama being assassinated is on youtube (if it hasn't been taken down).
It is about as subtle as trump's illusion to assassination. It is disgusting. Decent Americans who saw this spectacle should have written her off for good at that point.
So - Hillary set the bar and trump is now just following suite.
The fact is that behind closed doors Hillary is as disgusting a human being as donald trump is in public and in private.
Hillary says what she needs to say in public to appeal to her constituency, to get votes and to be elected POTUS so she can gain power, influence and access to a shitload more of money.
She is sociopathic scum. But she is apparently, on balance, less dangerous to the USA's existence than trump.
Hillary is odds on favorite to be elected. I will be utterly gobsmacked if she somehow loses to trump. I think the pundits and polls are right - she will win and win big.
trump is such a crank he may even drop out of the race on some pretense - he is that weird. Who the hell can guess what that piece of shit will do next?
To repeat my long-standing theme those in very blue or very red states are free to vote their conscience - for Stein - and no harm no foul. Even in purple states the odds of any one person's (or my) individual vote for Stein flipping the election to trump is like millions to one.
If HRC needs MY vote in order to defeat trump then she is one fucked goose.
But I say HRC will win. Anyone wish to bet against her at this point? If so, I'll take that bet.
I say our next POTUS will be a piece of shit - but at least she will be mainly housebroken and not a fucking three-headed Hellhound from Neptune named donald trump.
And so odds are we will dodge the bullet. Sort of.
".....If we're keeping score .....Hillary sounded a similar note, way back in 2008 ...Keith Olbermann nailed it at the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y ..... I don't suppose anyone remembers that one..."
Well, I too remember it. The actual video of one of the many times she mentioned the possibility of Obama being assassinated is on youtube (if it hasn't been taken down).
It is about as subtle as trump's illusion to assassination. It is disgusting. Decent Americans who saw this spectacle should have written her off for good at that point.
So - Hillary set the bar and trump is now just following suite.
The fact is that behind closed doors Hillary is as disgusting a human being as donald trump is in public and in private.
Hillary says what she needs to say in public to appeal to her constituency, to get votes and to be elected POTUS so she can gain power, influence and access to a shitload more of money.
She is sociopathic scum. But she is apparently, on balance, less dangerous to the USA's existence than trump.
Hillary is odds on favorite to be elected. I will be utterly gobsmacked if she somehow loses to trump. I think the pundits and polls are right - she will win and win big.
trump is such a crank he may even drop out of the race on some pretense - he is that weird. Who the hell can guess what that piece of shit will do next?
To repeat my long-standing theme those in very blue or very red states are free to vote their conscience - for Stein - and no harm no foul. Even in purple states the odds of any one person's (or my) individual vote for Stein flipping the election to trump is like millions to one.
If HRC needs MY vote in order to defeat trump then she is one fucked goose.
But I say HRC will win. Anyone wish to bet against her at this point? If so, I'll take that bet.
I say our next POTUS will be a piece of shit - but at least she will be mainly housebroken and not a fucking three-headed Hellhound from Neptune named donald trump.
And so odds are we will dodge the bullet. Sort of.
299krazy4katz
>298 JGL53: So you are relying on the rest of us to vote for HRC to protect you from Trump, but of course you would never stoop so low? Very brave and principled. :-/
300JGL53
> 299
I will assume you are kidding, k4k, because otherwise we all here would have good reason to question whether your I.Q. is up to par.
But I wouldn't do that.
So, you must be kidding. Surely.
So, then, good one. Ha ha.
I will assume you are kidding, k4k, because otherwise we all here would have good reason to question whether your I.Q. is up to par.
But I wouldn't do that.
So, you must be kidding. Surely.
So, then, good one. Ha ha.
301krazy4katz
Not kidding. At least not about the first part. How you choose to evaluate my IQ is not my problem. I understand the idea of voting for the person you think will make the best president, even if he/she has no chance of winning. I did that once myself. I decided it was a mistake because the worst candidate won. Politics just isn't pure unfortunately. It has to be played like a chess game.
I do apologize for the last sentence. I realize now the sarcasm was a bit offensive.
I do apologize for the last sentence. I realize now the sarcasm was a bit offensive.
302RickHarsch
>299 krazy4katz: Difficult to offend me, K4K, but detachedly I have to say it is offensive for one who believes in democracy to some extent to attack in any way the choice of another individual. Surely you have enough Trumpers to argue with--why do you think you own the method for defeating him and why assume the right to tell other anti-Trumpers what to do? I opted out of the process while living in the US, voting in a presidential election just once, in 1980, for Barry Commoner. After that I opted fully out--I profoundly disagree with the US system and refused to engage it by voting. Then I voted with my plane ticket out of there. Would you berate me for my choices?
303davidgn
Haven't read Dmitry Orlov in a while, but I'd say his recent suggested method is as valid as Rick's, or mine, or anyone else's.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2016/08/furious-sheep.html
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2016/08/furious-sheep.html
I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is—an apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no matter how you vote? A 2014 study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are precisely zero.
Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep, obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at political manipulation?
...
304proximity1
>295 St._Troy: Thank you. It happens that I get a complimentary seconding of opinion but it's rather rare.
>297 SomeGuyInVirginia: : "A really appealing pop-up candidate could take this thing. Joe Biden could win. Tim Kaine could win. Hillary can't win."
There is zero reason to expect or hope for such a "pop-up" candidate. To imagine that there could be one ignores and mistakes the patent facts about our political predicament.
Hillary and Bill Clinton not only can win, they are far and away the favorites of the establishment political order and only a freak upset could keep them from their preordained appointment to office. The chances of such an upset are the work of the mainstream press to destroy--just as they've destroyed the challenge posed by Bernie Sanders--and every day they accomplish a little more toward that objective.
The elite are so solidly in control that they are able to make side-show sport of a gadfly billionaire real-estate developer who has the bizzare role of "outsider" in this "race."
>303 davidgn: : I agree. For us to vote for the Clintons has all the good sense of turkeys showing up on Thanksgiving eve and asking a kitchen-chef, "what's for dinner?"
>297 SomeGuyInVirginia: : "A really appealing pop-up candidate could take this thing. Joe Biden could win. Tim Kaine could win. Hillary can't win."
There is zero reason to expect or hope for such a "pop-up" candidate. To imagine that there could be one ignores and mistakes the patent facts about our political predicament.
Hillary and Bill Clinton not only can win, they are far and away the favorites of the establishment political order and only a freak upset could keep them from their preordained appointment to office. The chances of such an upset are the work of the mainstream press to destroy--just as they've destroyed the challenge posed by Bernie Sanders--and every day they accomplish a little more toward that objective.
The elite are so solidly in control that they are able to make side-show sport of a gadfly billionaire real-estate developer who has the bizzare role of "outsider" in this "race."
>303 davidgn: : I agree. For us to vote for the Clintons has all the good sense of turkeys showing up on Thanksgiving eve and asking a kitchen-chef, "what's for dinner?"
305SomeGuyInVirginia
>304 proximity1: This is the first election in my lifetime where both candidates have such strong negatives. Trump favores slightly in that regard- his true believers like him. I don't pick up on that from Hillary's true believers, who will vote for her despite not really liking her.
Hillary would likely win if the elections were held today, I think, but it would be folly to disregard Trump's future chances. Right now both candidates seem to be giving each other enough rope to hang themselves. If his handlers can muzzle him, he stands a real chance of parleying Hillary's negatives into a win.
Hillary would likely win if the elections were held today, I think, but it would be folly to disregard Trump's future chances. Right now both candidates seem to be giving each other enough rope to hang themselves. If his handlers can muzzle him, he stands a real chance of parleying Hillary's negatives into a win.
306krazy4katz
>302 RickHarsch: No I don't berate you for your choices.
I am just pointing out the consequences of voting for the "best" candidate who will never win based on my having done something similar. My negativity was more about my perception of the attitude of >298 JGL53:. I thought he wanted Trump to lose but was unwilling to pull the lever to make that happen. I guess I am also not as negative about HRC as the rest of you so that makes a difference.
I am just pointing out the consequences of voting for the "best" candidate who will never win based on my having done something similar. My negativity was more about my perception of the attitude of >298 JGL53:. I thought he wanted Trump to lose but was unwilling to pull the lever to make that happen. I guess I am also not as negative about HRC as the rest of you so that makes a difference.
307jjwilson61
I think the method of allowing the plurality winner in US elections is a poor one and leads to there being only two viable parties at any particular time. There are other better methods such as instant runoff voting that doesn't have this flaw but the two major parties will never allow their dominance to be challenged. However, if the major parties lose enough times because of spoilers then perhaps they will relent. So there *is* a reason to vote you conscience even if it might cause your least favored candidate to win.
308proximity1
>305 SomeGuyInVirginia:
SGV --
I agree with you that things could seriously worsen for the Clintons between now and 8 Nov. That's what I hope for. But the mainstream press's powers to confuse, distract, frighten and fool vast numbers of not-very-politically-astute Americans are on display here in this site's discussion-threads every day as well as in hundreds of other discussion threads on the internet; they are VERY good at it. So I put the odds very much against Trump's winning.
How good are the news mass-media at these arts? Ask yourself: If he could run again, do you think Obama would be re-elected?
Most Americans simply have little or no idea of how they're being played and suckered in this election.
SGV --
I agree with you that things could seriously worsen for the Clintons between now and 8 Nov. That's what I hope for. But the mainstream press's powers to confuse, distract, frighten and fool vast numbers of not-very-politically-astute Americans are on display here in this site's discussion-threads every day as well as in hundreds of other discussion threads on the internet; they are VERY good at it. So I put the odds very much against Trump's winning.
How good are the news mass-media at these arts? Ask yourself: If he could run again, do you think Obama would be re-elected?
Most Americans simply have little or no idea of how they're being played and suckered in this election.
309maggie1944
I started following this thread due to this: "This is a thread to discuss not Trump's fitness or unfitness, but simply whether or not he is going to—or can—win. I think it's becoming increasingly obvious he cannot."
I do not want to read the back and forth name calling, and people here pointing fingers at each other.
I am capable of reading the record of both candidates and making my own mind up as to my vote, and considering very seriously whether my vote has any real meaning.
And yes, I did read 303 and it is indeed food for thought.
I do not want to read the back and forth name calling, and people here pointing fingers at each other.
I am capable of reading the record of both candidates and making my own mind up as to my vote, and considering very seriously whether my vote has any real meaning.
And yes, I did read 303 and it is indeed food for thought.
310proximity1
>309 maggie1944:
"This is a thread to discuss not Trump's fitness or unfitness, but simply whether or not he is going to—or can—win."
Right. We're to discuss whether Trump could win ( as a possibility, this is now fully given as true) or whether he shall win--(which none of us can know until some time after election day) all without touching on either his fitness or his unfitness for office--this latter being the very question which is consuming--and shall continue to consume until election-day--the attention of much of the nation and that if the rest of the world.
Got it.
"This is a thread to discuss not Trump's fitness or unfitness, but simply whether or not he is going to—or can—win."
Right. We're to discuss whether Trump could win ( as a possibility, this is now fully given as true) or whether he shall win--(which none of us can know until some time after election day) all without touching on either his fitness or his unfitness for office--this latter being the very question which is consuming--and shall continue to consume until election-day--the attention of much of the nation and that if the rest of the world.
Got it.
311JGL53
> 306 krazy4katz ....... My negativity was more about my perception of the attitude of .... JGL53 ... I thought he wanted Trump to lose but was unwilling to pull the lever to make that happen...."
Anyone who expresses the conviction that he or she thinks my (JGL53) vote is so important that it could "make that happen" - whatever the "that" is - like this Presidential candidate being more likely elected or that Presidential candidate more likely lose the election - well, yes, at this point I will seriously have to question the I.Q. of such a person.
Stupidity can be the only reason to make such a statement - if one is being serious and not facetious.
I now state this as my utter conviction.
If such is a violation of the T.O.S. then so be it.
If posting this gets me any red flags then so be it.
I cannot seem to get the simple idea through to k4k - and a few others here apparently - that my single vote (or someone's else's single vote) does not make a DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE in who loses or wins a Presidential election. Presidential elections are won by millions of raw votes effecting the selection of 50 different batches of electoral votes, which are the votes that actually count.
If someone can't appreciate these facts of political life - if someone cannot immediately krok this simple political reality - then what could possibly be the reason they cannot?
Yes, that's right. As stated above.
Anyone who expresses the conviction that he or she thinks my (JGL53) vote is so important that it could "make that happen" - whatever the "that" is - like this Presidential candidate being more likely elected or that Presidential candidate more likely lose the election - well, yes, at this point I will seriously have to question the I.Q. of such a person.
Stupidity can be the only reason to make such a statement - if one is being serious and not facetious.
I now state this as my utter conviction.
If such is a violation of the T.O.S. then so be it.
If posting this gets me any red flags then so be it.
I cannot seem to get the simple idea through to k4k - and a few others here apparently - that my single vote (or someone's else's single vote) does not make a DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE in who loses or wins a Presidential election. Presidential elections are won by millions of raw votes effecting the selection of 50 different batches of electoral votes, which are the votes that actually count.
If someone can't appreciate these facts of political life - if someone cannot immediately krok this simple political reality - then what could possibly be the reason they cannot?
Yes, that's right. As stated above.
312krazy4katz
OK. What does "krok" mean?
Best wishes,
k4k
Best wishes,
k4k
313proximity1
>312 krazy4katz:
Probably a typographical error for
Grok /ˈɡrɒk/ is a word coined by Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 science-fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land. While the Oxford English Dictionary summarizes the meaning of grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy, to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment" ... (Wikipedia)
Probably a typographical error for
Grok /ˈɡrɒk/ is a word coined by Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 science-fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land. While the Oxford English Dictionary summarizes the meaning of grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy, to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment" ... (Wikipedia)
314krazy4katz
OK, thanks. k4k
316JGL53
> 313
Yes, "grok". That is the word I meant to use but I keypunched "krok" instead by mistake.
Apparently it was a kind of a (non-sexual) Freudian slip - I was subliminally thinking of "crock" - apparently.
lol.
Yes, "grok". That is the word I meant to use but I keypunched "krok" instead by mistake.
Apparently it was a kind of a (non-sexual) Freudian slip - I was subliminally thinking of "crock" - apparently.
lol.
317JGL53
> 315
Are you taking bets on that? I am not a gambler but I will be glad to put money on a sure thing, as such is not really gambling, being more like an investment in a blue chip stock.
lol.
Are you taking bets on that? I am not a gambler but I will be glad to put money on a sure thing, as such is not really gambling, being more like an investment in a blue chip stock.
lol.
318lriley
Must be the season of assassination.
Surely Trump started it all this year--but there are others that just can't help themselves. Bob Beckel--a Clinton campaign adviser? (I don't know if that's actually true or not) says he doesn't believe in the death penalty but that we should illegally take out the 'traitor' Julian Assange. So he's against a judicially rendered death penalty but he's for extra judicially rendered death penalties and reached without trials--that's nice to know. What I really think is he's an asshole fuckhead. Anyway I put quotation marks around traitor for a reason. It seems to be something of a reach to describe a foreign national who has never really lived in your country as a traitor. How can you betray a country that you're not even a citizen of?
Michael Grunwald then pipes up with his own tweet about murdering Assange with a drone strike. I'm wondering just how big of a fool Grunwald can be. Doesn't he know that Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past few years? The things that people daydream about. To put it simply Grunwald is a moron.
So since the Donald opened his fat mouth and said his stupid shit---must be alright for some democrats to do the same?
http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com/illegally-clinton-assange-assassinate/
Surely Trump started it all this year--but there are others that just can't help themselves. Bob Beckel--a Clinton campaign adviser? (I don't know if that's actually true or not) says he doesn't believe in the death penalty but that we should illegally take out the 'traitor' Julian Assange. So he's against a judicially rendered death penalty but he's for extra judicially rendered death penalties and reached without trials--that's nice to know. What I really think is he's an asshole fuckhead. Anyway I put quotation marks around traitor for a reason. It seems to be something of a reach to describe a foreign national who has never really lived in your country as a traitor. How can you betray a country that you're not even a citizen of?
Michael Grunwald then pipes up with his own tweet about murdering Assange with a drone strike. I'm wondering just how big of a fool Grunwald can be. Doesn't he know that Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past few years? The things that people daydream about. To put it simply Grunwald is a moron.
So since the Donald opened his fat mouth and said his stupid shit---must be alright for some democrats to do the same?
http://www.thefreethoughtproject.com/illegally-clinton-assange-assassinate/
319Crypto-Willobie
I don't want to assassinate him but I think Assange is a vandal rather than an altruist.
320RickHarsch
>319 Crypto-Willobie: And he can't play shortstop.
321RickHarsch
>306 krazy4katz: k4k, One thing is that in the US it is pretty hard to convince anyone that a single vote matters--though essentially I assume the arguments are made in an attempt to sway more than one person but here you are kind of stuck because you are responding to one person at a time. For what it's worth, I have not gotten the dark sense that anyone here would vote against Clinton so that Trump might win, with the possible exception of proximity1, but he owns the planet so my speculation is meaningless.
Strangely, though, upon moving to Izola from elsewhere in Slovenia, having the right to vote in local elections, my wife and I decided to sit out our first mayoral final--our primary candidate lost...Turns out the vote was so close as to be contested and had we voted it would have been for the loser who then may have had, with our two more votes, a somewhat better chance of winning (it was very confusing)...Now I vote here, I campaign here, I write letters to the paper often, I am active...I see what can be done right before my eyes. In the US all I could see was what was happening that I could do nothing about...
Strangely, though, upon moving to Izola from elsewhere in Slovenia, having the right to vote in local elections, my wife and I decided to sit out our first mayoral final--our primary candidate lost...Turns out the vote was so close as to be contested and had we voted it would have been for the loser who then may have had, with our two more votes, a somewhat better chance of winning (it was very confusing)...Now I vote here, I campaign here, I write letters to the paper often, I am active...I see what can be done right before my eyes. In the US all I could see was what was happening that I could do nothing about...
322theoria
>321 RickHarsch: As Mr Trump's poll numbers continue to drop, they might as well vote for the Easter Bunny.
323JGL53
> 321
"....Now I vote here, I campaign here, I write letters to the paper often, I am active...I see what can be done right before my eyes. In the US all I could see was what was happening that I could do nothing about..."
Exactly. The raw vote for U.S. President every year now totals something like 130 million in the 50 states and Wash., D.C.
So - one vote - your vote, my vote, any god damn vote - does not count shit. It just fucking doesn't.
In looking back over the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections I see that the closest vote occurred in the 2008 race in Missouri. McCain beat Obama by only around 3,900 votes.
In all the states that Obama won in 2008 and in his reelection in 2012 the closest margin of victory for him was around 14,000 votes.
I do not understand why this simple political fact cannot be understood by assholes who insist "every vote counts". Yes it does, but when the fuck does it count in turning an election? The answer: NEVER, you fucking dumbasses.
Goddamn, sometimes I feel like I am trying to explain simple quadratic equations to seven year olds and getting nowhere. I need to understand they are not advanced enough - they are still trying to master long division - so I should just fucking stop because the motherfuckers CANNOT fucking understand - so I should just give up trying to explain it to them.
But I just can't. I can't accept that people who are walking around and chewing gum at the same time can be that fucking STUPID.
Why, god, why? (metaphorically-speaking)
"....Now I vote here, I campaign here, I write letters to the paper often, I am active...I see what can be done right before my eyes. In the US all I could see was what was happening that I could do nothing about..."
Exactly. The raw vote for U.S. President every year now totals something like 130 million in the 50 states and Wash., D.C.
So - one vote - your vote, my vote, any god damn vote - does not count shit. It just fucking doesn't.
In looking back over the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections I see that the closest vote occurred in the 2008 race in Missouri. McCain beat Obama by only around 3,900 votes.
In all the states that Obama won in 2008 and in his reelection in 2012 the closest margin of victory for him was around 14,000 votes.
I do not understand why this simple political fact cannot be understood by assholes who insist "every vote counts". Yes it does, but when the fuck does it count in turning an election? The answer: NEVER, you fucking dumbasses.
Goddamn, sometimes I feel like I am trying to explain simple quadratic equations to seven year olds and getting nowhere. I need to understand they are not advanced enough - they are still trying to master long division - so I should just fucking stop because the motherfuckers CANNOT fucking understand - so I should just give up trying to explain it to them.
But I just can't. I can't accept that people who are walking around and chewing gum at the same time can be that fucking STUPID.
Why, god, why? (metaphorically-speaking)
324RickHarsch
>322 theoria: If the Easter Bunny wins via write in we will look back on this post...
325theoria
>324 RickHarsch: Feel the hop!
328JGL53
> 326
My brain produces all the chemicals that make me who and what I am. I don't need or use none of them there PHARMA shit pills with all of them there weird side Affects.
But thanks for axing. I appreciates your sincere concern.
My brain produces all the chemicals that make me who and what I am. I don't need or use none of them there PHARMA shit pills with all of them there weird side Affects.
But thanks for axing. I appreciates your sincere concern.
329krazy4katz
>321 RickHarsch: To be quite honest, I am not sure what I would do if I hated HRC as much as many people here seem to. That might change things for me, but I still don't think I could cast a protest vote with Trump as the beneficiary. So so risky. My perspective on HRC is all the good things: trying to pass healthcare, working for children's welfare, campaigned for women's rights etc. To risk Trump being elected by choosing a third party candidate is just not an option even if she is not perfect. For those who see HRC as the devil incarnate, well it's hard to get any solid information about that. I don't seem to be able to talk to those people without having my IQ questioned so I don't get anywhere. Right now I don't have time to dig into all these articles on the web that seem to come out of cyberspace attesting to her corrupt soul — too busy at work. But there will be time before the election. At least if I vote for her I will know what we are getting in to.
Your story about Slovenia is interesting. I have tried on a local level to do the same and I really think the fight is in Congress in November. We need to vote out the obstructionists that have kept Obama from doing many of the things he could have.
>323 JGL53: You just never know. Your vote may count. You may be just a few hanging chads from victory. Don't give in to that desperate feeling of isolation and impotence. Yours very sweetly (and possibly mentally challenged for trying to respond)…k4k
Your story about Slovenia is interesting. I have tried on a local level to do the same and I really think the fight is in Congress in November. We need to vote out the obstructionists that have kept Obama from doing many of the things he could have.
>323 JGL53: You just never know. Your vote may count. You may be just a few hanging chads from victory. Don't give in to that desperate feeling of isolation and impotence. Yours very sweetly (and possibly mentally challenged for trying to respond)…k4k
330RickHarsch
>329 krazy4katz: Luckily, the fervor in this argument goes only one way here on LT. Those voting for Clinton are not directly accosted, while those who are going third party are. Voting against Trump for the candidate likely to beat him can fit you into a variety of categories, but on the face of it there is no good argument against it. I couldn't manage to do it, but at the same time I would not want to suffer Trump. But I did suffer Reagan and Bush Pops and B Clinton...and scrammed...I know some few folks working very hard on the progressive side, particularly in Wisconsin and I sincerely hope they do some good.
...and the devil incarnate is the devil you know...
...and the devil incarnate is the devil you know...
331proximity1
>329 krazy4katz:
"Right now I don't have time to dig into all these articles on the web that seem to come out of cyberspace attesting to her corrupt soul — too busy at work. But there will be time before the election."
Good.
Though an atheist, I've come to the conviction--through reading work on neurobiology and molecular biology-- that, intimately related to this emergent phenomenon we call "mind," our evolved human consciousness, there's something which we can aptly call a "soul." It refers to a certain amalgamated capacity in our mental existence, one which is not just mortal but fragile. It records the shocks it suffers just as it can flourish in propitious circumstances.
Well, by many outward indications of her words and deeds, Hillary has the soul of a hardened con-man and that of a person who is deeply corrupted, venal and morally blind to herself in all her waking states of consciousness. (I shudder to imagine her unprotected awareness of herself as it might be revealed in a dream-state.) From the point of view of the soul, she's wreckage.
We're not so much "electing" the Clintons to high political office, as we are ratifying an affliction --the design of a dominant political elite whose own souls resemble those of the Clintons.
The best guide to all this that I know of is Shakespeare's work. It's full of vividly-drawn pictures of the wreckage of souls--especially where they concern people who have or who aspire and strive to have high, powerful office.
It's no mere coincidence that, in our time, there's both an immense ignorance and misunderstanding of the import of Shakespeare's identity and his meanings on one hand and, on the other, a general incapacity to see, understand and differentiate between types and degrees of power-seekers whose souls are distinctly black with their history of corruption and selfish greed.
Yes, indeed I would not hesitate to vote against the Clintons by casting my ballot for Trump, if I could. "Offered" that cruel farce of a "choice," of course I would. We have no other peaceful means by which to send a message to the political elite which they'd duly note and be impressed by.
332LolaWalser
>297 SomeGuyInVirginia:
Hillary can't win.
Is this a prediction (more or less reasoned), or a projection of wishful thinking? It seems that either way it could depend on your (general you) micro-environment and personal characteristics. No doubt there's a sizeable group of old(ish) white men who seem to have found a purpose for their miserable lives in execrating Clinton in the most outlandish, misogynistic terms. If you belong to or hang around those, I'm sure she appears deeply hated.
But, as far as I know, that group has long ceased to be the majority of the electorate. So perhaps options other than "Hillary can't win" are still available. Certainly, if I went by what I hear in MY micro-environment, she's a shoo-in.
Hillary can't win.
Is this a prediction (more or less reasoned), or a projection of wishful thinking? It seems that either way it could depend on your (general you) micro-environment and personal characteristics. No doubt there's a sizeable group of old(ish) white men who seem to have found a purpose for their miserable lives in execrating Clinton in the most outlandish, misogynistic terms. If you belong to or hang around those, I'm sure she appears deeply hated.
But, as far as I know, that group has long ceased to be the majority of the electorate. So perhaps options other than "Hillary can't win" are still available. Certainly, if I went by what I hear in MY micro-environment, she's a shoo-in.
333proximity1
>332 LolaWalser:
To that "feminist" bigotry I offer this in reply :
... "No doubt there's a sizeable group of old(ish) white men who seem to have found a purpose for their miserable lives in execrating Clinton in the most outlandish, misogynistic terms. If you belong to or hang around those, I'm sure she appears deeply hated."
To that "feminist" bigotry I offer this in reply :
"Who does Naked Capitalism represent? The site, which I describe as “fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power,” receives 1.3 million to 1.5 million page views a month and has amassed approximately 80 million readers since its launch in 2006. Its readership is disproportionately graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers, many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash, Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/wall-street-2016-donald-trump-hil...
This topic was continued by Trump is going to lose, badly (Part 2).
