Trump is going to lose, badly (Part 2)

Dette er en fortsættelse af tråden Trump is going to lose, badly.

SnakPro and Con

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Trump is going to lose, badly (Part 2)

1davidgn
aug 11, 2016, 8:38 pm

Old thread is loading too slowly. It's way past time for starting a new one.

2krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 11, 2016, 10:39 pm

>329RickHarsch: 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…


>330 I suffered Reagan etc also, but my big mistake was voting for Anderson instead of Carter! I had the very wrong perception about this particular southern Democrat and I also thought he didn't have enough experience at the national level. Now THAT was stupid! Well…. I was in college…No TV, no newspaper...

3RickHarsch
aug 11, 2016, 9:08 pm

Well, I helped you hurt Carter: I voted for Barry Commoner.

4krazy4katz
aug 11, 2016, 9:09 pm

>3 RickHarsch: OK, we're even.

5prosfilaes
aug 11, 2016, 10:23 pm

307 jjwilson61: 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.

I wish there was more understanding of that. There's a lot of failure to understand or even be interested in how the voting system works in theory or practice. I think For all practical purposes : introduction to contemporary mathematics should be the text book for a mandatory class at the high school level, but that would take years to filter through the population. I've never seen any major direct attack on the first-past-the-post system that the two major parties would have to respond to.

(I'm not a fan of instant runoff; it has a lot of the same problems as first-past-the-post, in that it can easily toss out the lukewarm compromise candidate for the raging extremes that a majority of the people hate. Why not just have people rank them and do a Condorcet?)

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.

I don't see it happening. I think we might see the Republicans break down this election or next, and then another major party will rise from the ashes. Same thing you see last time we had a party collapse in the US, and the same thing you see in many revolutions; the names may change, but the people who were in power just reorganize themselves in the new parties.

6theoria
aug 11, 2016, 11:31 pm

No one likes a belligerent clown:

"In an essay for Marie Claire, MSNBC/NBC reporter Katy Tur writes that, after Donald Trump launched a personal attack against her at a South Carolina rally, she had to be accompanied out by Secret Service agents. Tur, who’s been covering Trump for the networks for the last year, became the focus of the Republican candidate’s ire after she live-tweeted protests at an earlier North Carolina rally....

At the rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, Trump howled about the dishonest media, calling out Tur by name. “She’s back there. Little Katy. She’s back there,” Trump said, referring to a grown woman as “little.” Trump continued, calling Tur a “third rate” reporter and her tweets a “lie.” Tur writes that the crowd began booing her, quickly turning on her “like a large animal, angry and unchained.” The Secret Service walked Tur to her car and that, Tur notes, is when the reality of the “incident sank in.” http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-secret-service-protected-reporter-katy-tur-after-...

7JGL53
Redigeret: aug 11, 2016, 11:53 pm

> 2,3,4

In the Presidential race of 1980 Reagan beat Carter 489 electoral votes to 49. The raw vote totals were as follows:


Ronald W. Reagan Republican 43,642,639
Jimmy Carter Democratic 35,480,948
John B. Anderson Independent 5,719,437
Ed Clark Libertarian 921,299
Barry Commoner Citizens 234,294
Gus Hall Communist 45,023
John R. Rarick American Independent 41,268
Clifton DeBerry Socialist Workers 38,737
Ellen McCormack Right to Life 32,327
Maureen Smith Peace and Freedom 18,116
Deirdre Griswold Workers World 13,300

So if you two had both voted for Reagan - or, conversely, if you two had voted for Carter - guess what? - the results of the election would have been EXACTLY THE SAME. I.e., your two votes would have counted FOR SHIT in either case. (For the record I voted for Ed Clark - and likewise my vote counted for shit.)

You two didn't make any "big mistakes", nor were either of you seriously "wrong" in some way, nor did either of you "hurt" anybody in any way whatsoever.

Your votes were inconsequential. Besides the point. Unimportant. Redundant. Of no serious use. Completely irrelevant to the election. They seriously counted - for NOTHING. For all the good either of your votes did you may as well had stayed at home. Or took a header off the Golden Gate Bridge the day before the election.

Are either of you following my drift? Or am I just casting my pearls (of wisdom) before (metaphorical) swine?

If god resents humans who have bigger egos than he does - then you two are in big trouble and need to repent before it is too late.

LOL.

8JGL53
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 12:27 am

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/trump-vs-clinton-how-to-spot-the-lies-commentary....

I find it heart-warming that on Nov. 8 the voters will - with greatest probability - be electing a person POTUS who, when she opens her mouth in public, only lies around one-fourth of the time.

I suppose we could do worse. (I don't think trump lies so much as he just purposely says crazy shit to see what reaction he will get - like some four year old ill-disciplined boy.)

9artturnerjr
Redigeret: aug 14, 2016, 12:47 pm

>329 k4k:

At least if I vote for her I will know what we are getting in to.

Precisely. I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of what a Hillary Clinton presidency will entail. I don't know exactly what a Trump presidency will be like, although I think the Boston Globe gave us a pretty good picture of the possibilities:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797782/Ideas-Trump-front-page.pdf

Let me put this as plainly as I can. I feel that a Trump presidency would be an existential threat to the United States. I do not know Mr. Trump, but I know narcissists that are very much like him. I have seen them obliviously cause irreparable damage to people's lives through their thoughtless and reckless behavior, even though the ones that I know don't have anywhere near the power and/or influence of a US President. I find the thought of someone like that being the head of state of the most powerful country in the world to be truly terrifying.

(P1 et al. probably think I am the victim of a media con-job for believing this. So be it. They are certainly entitled to their opinion.)

10lriley
aug 12, 2016, 8:50 am

#7---the big fuss about individual votes really came out of the 2000 election. Even then Gore gets more overall votes than Bush and George W. becomes president. And I think from that we all have a picture of how things are going to look if a vote count in a particular state is going to throw an election to one candidate or another. You're going to have piles of piles of lawyers and political operatives fighting over whether this vote should count or that one should not. It's not going to be so cut and dried--it will be both sides manipulating--there will be disputes and injustices to get to wherever the winner needs to get. Elections can always be rigged.

11proximity1
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 10:00 am

>9 artturnerjr:

... "(P1 et al. probably think I am the victim of a media con-job for believing this. So be it. They are certainly entitled to their opinion.)" ...

Thank you.

Of course I regard you that way. It does stand to reason that, if you weren't a victim of the media's con-job, you wouldn't be supporting Clinton. I say this because I have no reason to believe you're voting for her out a completely rational motive based on greedy selfish interest. Were that so, you would not rightly be described as a victim of the media's con--you'd be more properly described as a party to it. But I do not believe that's the case. Thus, your intentions are sincerely motivated and quite respectable--but they're based on utterly false views which the media's con-work promotes and fosters.

You remind me of a guy with whom I argued at length about there being zero basis in scientific reason for a positive belief in God. Finally, he said, "I don't understand the argument you're making."

"Of course you don't," I answered, "if you understood it, then you would agree with my points."

----------

For further reading :

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary |By YVES SMITH* June 01, 2016




Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else.


"Why do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don’t just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say “Hell no!” to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

"And they don’t come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents—one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate—and any change will be better. One reader writes:


'If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will (do one of three things):

A. Not vote for president in November.
B. Vote for Trump.
C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.

'We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats."


"Or as another reader puts it:


'I don’t want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I’d like to think I’d have the guts to do it.'


"To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail, the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.

"Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown. They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being solidly behind Hillary—older, professional women who live in major cities—who regard Trump as an acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons." ...

------------
* "Yves Smith" is the pen-name of Susan Webber, "the principal of Aurora Advisors, Inc. " (Wikipedia: "Naked Capitalism") and the author of ECONned . She is the founder and directing editor of the site Naked Capitalism (dot) com.


12theoria
aug 12, 2016, 9:58 am

The super-smartest progressives I know will write-in the Tooth Fairy.

13LolaWalser
aug 12, 2016, 10:31 am

>9 artturnerjr:

I feel that a Trump presidency would be an existential threat to the United States.

And not just to the US.

But I still can't believe I'm supposed to discuss seriously Trump-as-POTUS...

14lriley
aug 12, 2016, 11:01 am

Both Hillary and Trump have a bad habit of shooting themselves in the foot but the one thing that Hillary isn't doing is she's not really eroding her base support. Trump has and it speaks to his incompetency in pretty much all he does. The democratic party apparatus is firmly behind HRC--and most of the major Sanders people are with her now too. Trump may have masses of people but he's nowhere near 50% and it looks to me like he hit his ceiling a long time ago and he is eroding his base support. He's going to need some kind of anti-miracle to win.

15krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 1:07 pm

>7 JGL53:
Your votes were inconsequential. Besides the point. Unimportant. Redundant. Of no serious use. Completely irrelevant to the election. They seriously counted - for NOTHING. For all the good either of your votes did you may as well had stayed at home. Or took a header off the Golden Gate Bridge the day before the election.

Are either of you following my drift? Or am I just casting my pearls (of wisdom) before (metaphorical) swine?

If god resents humans who have bigger egos than he does - then you two are in big trouble and need to repent before it is too late.

LOL.


>7 JGL53:
Please be at peace. Of course I know, and I am sure >3 RickHarsch: knows, that our 1 vote did not literally determine the outcome of the election. The point is that there is a collective responsibility among people who take different strategies which is why we discuss different points of view with many people to help determine the best way to vote considering the situation at hand. Of course, as >10 lriley: said, one never knows...

16SomeGuyInVirginia
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 2:08 pm

>13 LolaWalser:

Hillary can't win, as in 'she's not able'. I can be wrong, I thought she was a shoo-in in 2008. But she's having to work to overcome Trump (a nut) and Bernie (an angry old socialist). If she were strong she'd now be gathering rosebuds as she may.

I also don't have a dog in that fight; I am simply trying to understand what's going on, and why and what is likely to happen. I don't think she's hated by the majority, and I also don't think she's liked by the majority. And nobody loves her, not that love is necessary to get someone to vote. But it's true. She addressed her lack of emotional appeal in a speech, which was kind of smart and kind of dumb because by acknowledging that she didn't have the warmth of her husband she owned it and she framed any discussion of it in terms of 'ok, yesterday's news, let's move on', but she also pointed out the elephant in the room and made it an acceptable topic of discussion.

Trump's negatives are his almost total lack of support from the GOP, his lack of experience, his feuds with the press, and his coming across as a petulant brat and, possibly, a dangerous narcissist. His strength is his connection with a segment of the electorate that feels marginalized by the status quo. That voting segment is middle class whites, more male than not. More subtly, a general sense that things are not really going well and may get worse. I find this feeling to be widespread, and extends outside the middle class white segment.

Hillary's negatives are her personality, her brushes with the law and congressional investigations, and a complete blank as far as her accomplishments. Her strengths are her support from the DNC, if she has no accomplishments she also has no failed policies, an adeptness in dealing with the press, a nostalgia for the Clinton White House years, and generally high approval ratings for Obama. Being a woman is both a strength and a weakness, in terms of getting votes.

I have a hunch that, barring a total meltdown by either candidate that utterly discredits them, this election is going to be decided in the last few days of October, and it would be folly to discount Trump (or Hillary) based on what's going on today.

Please don't take this as an endorsement for either candidate because it's not. It is an inquiry.

17lriley
aug 12, 2016, 1:56 pm

#16--There are significantly more people registered as democrats or leaning that way than there are republicans and leaning republican. It's not exactly a half and half equation. Republicans may be a bit more dependable as voters but Trump is not the kind of candidate that's going to touch all the bases with his base.

Any case the latest polls have him down significantly to Clinton and his ability to convince anyone not already convinced seems pretty much nil at this point. Generally most everyone I know who is under the age of 75 think he's a joke and there's tons of conservatives living around where I live.

Beyond that is the electoral college and a candidate has to have a path to victory to win. What is Trump's path? He'll be strongest in the south but apart from Florida and Texas there aren't a lot of electoral college votes. If he loses Florida he's fucked. He's got to win practically all the battleground states. Not very likely.

18SomeGuyInVirginia
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 2:19 pm

>17 lriley: 'Leaning' is squishy. I do know there are more registered democrats than republicans, and there are more independents than either.

Good point that Trump is eroding his base and Clinton is not.

19St._Troy
aug 12, 2016, 2:47 pm

Distaste and disaffection seem to be playing a larger role in this election than in any other I recall (bad blood and mudslinging are regular players, but I refer to the high negatives on both sides and the overall sense of "these two?"); for this reason, I would love to see a detailed post-event analysis of the actual vote, not so much by the usual demographic criteria (race, education, income) but more by Republican/Democratic/independent, party loyalists vs. undecideds, movement between parties (defections), abstentions/vote-while-holding-your-nosers, etc.

The characteristics of both sides have been catalogued; it now remains just to see how it breaks down, and I want to know more than just who won:

We know some Republicans will stay at home or vote for HC, but how many?

We know some Democrats will stay at home or vote for DJT, but how many?

We know some will just plain stay at home, but how many?

We know Trump's oddness will attract some and repel others, but how many?

I get the sense that would-be party loyalists are more likely to abstain on the Democratic side (out of affection for Bernie and disaffection for HC's corruption) than on the Republican side (where there was no appealing and victimized Bernie equivalent but where there are many voters to whom certain Trump goals sound good and who already possess a deeply held dislike of HC), but I have no stats etc. to support this; it is just my read.

I also get the sense that HC will have an advantage over DT with undecideds, as the "norm" (and whatever else we might say about these two, she definitely is the more normal candidate) becomes attractive to those who, by this late point, have yet to arrive at a conclusion (although, in this election, the negatives on both sides could well paralyze the faculties of those who have been putting the effort in all along).

As for independents, it really depends on what their unstated priorities actually are; some are near-conservatives unhappy with much of the Republican platform (possibly the "fiscal conservative/social liberal/cut my taxes and keep out of our bedrooms" types) and therefore not Republicans; some are liberals unhappy with much of their platform (possibly older "I'm all for welfare safety nets and an emphasis on education, but what's with the beatification of criminals and mass importation of unvettable refugees?" types). These people may inhabit the center while actually distantly orbiting of one of the continuum's edges. This might be the kind of election that gets people moving away from the center.

For independents/undecideds, an election like Obama/McCain was an easier choice for different reasons: the contrast between old and new couldn't have been more stark, but in this election, HC's demographic novelty (being a woman) hasn't lit up the room like the notion of electing an African-American - she'll have to work for it (this is no criticism of Obama, of course, who did work for it, but we know that he could have farted through the debates and still won - enough Americans didn't want another Republican, enough Americans wanted the chance at an African-American).

As a spectator of political sport, I rub my hands together greedily.

As an American citizen, I hold my breath...

20theoria
aug 12, 2016, 3:14 pm

What it comes down to is whether people want Obama 3.0 or the anarchy of Trump. The more Mr Trump rants about Obama and foreign policy, the more his poll numbers sink (because foreign policy is, among other things, his most glaring weakness: it puts the issue of temperament front and center). If Ms Clinton ties herself to Obama (52% approval at the moment), the greater the contrast between Trump and her candidacy will be, despite her peccadilloes (real or Fox News). Presidential elections are contested in the middle 60% of the electorate, not the 20% on the right and left fringes which are the happy hunting grounds of the populism of Trump and Sanders. Trump's only reliable base is the 20% on the far right, which was enough to win the Republican primary but is not sufficient in the general election. Moreover, he's losing any foothold he might have had in the middle ground.

What may be more important is the chance for Democrats to flip the Senate. Trump is doing all he can to help this happen.

21LolaWalser
aug 12, 2016, 3:31 pm

>16 SomeGuyInVirginia:

Hillary can't win, as in 'she's not able'.

Yeah, no. Nothing in your post actually demonstrates this. Women are hated mightily and she's very hateable--to some. But she doesn't only have "negatives" (seriously, has there ever been a politician without those, even overwhelmingly?); compared to Trump she's the Second Coming with ice cream and cherry on top. Because she's a reassuringly ordinary, successful politician--competent (demonstrably "able"), resilient, and reliably behaving within the range of acceptable behaviour for public figures. This is already much more than can be said for a great many of your politicians, even elected presidents. To say nothing of Trump.

By insisting on her "not being able", her "negatives" etc. you are skirting the issue of voters' choice, voters' prejudices, voters' hatreds. We have seen this type of concern-troll predictions and "inquiry" before, when Obama was running. The onus is placed on the "not able" candidate, on the candidate having "negatives"--as if racists deciding not to vote for a black person or misogynists calling women sacks of shit and ugly bitches were normal in calling upon candidate's inborn characteristics as faults, their "negatives".

They were wrong about Obama and you, I think, will be proven wrong about Clinton.

And if she loses to Trump, YOU may find that happened because of HER "emotional detachment" (yeah, she really loses something there next to a frothing racist, misogynist lunatic), HER "inability" to win, HER "negatives" and whatnot--to me that would be the final proof of how far American electorate degraded into pure fascist swinishness.

22lriley
aug 12, 2016, 4:48 pm

#18--the democratic party establishment is all on board with Hillary---that's a fact. Trump has continually bullied and derided the republican party establishment and....it's shown at their convention and it shows when republican congressmen and Senators are jumping off the train. That's not happening with the Democrats and barring a major major scandal it's not going to happen. Now Hillary might have a problem with millennial voters but a high % of them are first and second time voters and their great tendency is to the left and sometimes well to the left of Clinton and mainstream democrats. The question about them for the future is whether they'll move towards the center as they get older and hopefully they won't---they'll stay right where they are. I suspect the majority of them will vote for Clinton this time over Trump. A sizable minority will find another candidate but extremely few of them are going to pull the lever for Trump.

A major difference between the campaigns right now is Clinton's is organized and Trump's is disorganized. Trump is behind in the polls and falling.....and Trump continually says controversial things that continue to blow up in his face and if he continues to do so (and I don't see any ability to check himself or anyone at all who can control him spewing out his garbage) Clinton will win by a landslide--at least unless more email controversies rear up against Clinton. Even were that to happen it's going to take something really mind-blowing to reverse where the two campaigns are heading right now.

And I suspect the more insane shit that Trump sputters out the better Garry Johnson is going to do in the end. It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson takes a quarter to a third of the republican vote on Nov. 8.

23John5918
aug 12, 2016, 6:22 pm

>13 LolaWalser: But I still can't believe I'm supposed to discuss seriously Trump-as-POTUS...

Unfortunately that's what a lot of UK citizens thought about Brexit, and see what happened to us!

24krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 12, 2016, 6:46 pm

>23 John5918: Which is exactly why I feel so strongly about every vote counting even if it is not strictly true. (Lookin' at you, JGL53) ;-)

Off Topic: By the way, do you think Brexit is really going to happen?

25John5918
aug 12, 2016, 7:01 pm

>24 krazy4katz:

Yes, I also agree that every vote matters. Of course it's true that one single individual's vote may not make a huge difference most of the time, but if thousands of people take the same attitude, "My vote won't count so I won't vote", then the absence of those thousands of votes will definitely make a difference.

On Brexit, I don't know whether or not it will really happen. Too many legal and political uncertainties for the likes of me to make a prediction. After the initial shock, disbelief and disappointment I have now just resigned myself to it and stopped worrying about it. If it happens I will re-adjust my life to take account of the changes, if it doesn't happen I will take it as one of those little bonuses in life. I didn't get to vote, as I have lived outside UK for too long to be allowed to register to vote, which is another reason why I find it difficult to understand those who are privileged enough to have a vote but don't make use of it.

26BruceCoulson
aug 13, 2016, 12:12 am

Trump has attracted some very intelligent people who don't think he's a good choice; but think he'll still be better than Ms. Clinton. A great many of Trump's supporters are members of the 'Great Unwashed', who think (wrongly or not) that although Trump may not be the best choice; but that he speaks for them more than Ms. Clinton's policies do.

Consider the parable of Samson in the Temple; some may choose to vote for Trump simply because he'll damage everyone, and they have less to lose than the 'fat cats'.

My position is closer to Mercutio's, which is why I'm going to be voting for a third party candidate.

27proximity1
Redigeret: aug 13, 2016, 2:20 am

>19 St._Troy: : ..."I also get the sense that HC will have an advantage over DT with undecideds, as the "norm" (and whatever else we might say about these two, she definitely is the more normal candidate)"...

I don't think that's the case at all unless we naively confine our attention to the most superficial aspects. And, really, why should we?

By any careful examination, it is ludicrous to regard the Clintons as in any significant way more "normal" than Trump. Clinton is merely and superficially VERY conventional (just as is Obama)--and that's not even a "positive."

>16 SomeGuyInVirginia:

... "Trump's negatives are his almost total lack of support from the GOP, his lack of experience, "...

as far as actual experience in being president of the United States is concerned, Clinton and Trump are equally inexperienced.

..."his feuds with the press,"

HC would be "feuding" with the press if it was doing the responsible job it ought to be doing rather than the majority of it acting as press-agents for HC.

"and his coming across as a petulant brat and, possibly, a dangerous narcissist." ...

If we don't recognise these in HC, that's our fault.

"Hillary's negatives are her personality, her brushes with the law and congressional investigations, and a complete blank as far as her accomplishments. Her strengths are her support from the DNC, if she has no accomplishments she also has no failed policies,"...

I suppose that, as Obama's appointee, the failed policies are not HC's responsibility to bear but his. Still, she's virtually joined at the hip to every failed Obama policy--and she helped push Obama into what he's regretted as his worst mistake--the armed action in removing Lybian dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

You've overlooked the most serious--besides having an utterly shocking lack of sound judgement or moral decency (the main thing we should be insisting on in such a candidate; it is nothing short of stunning that a case can be made for Trump as actually better on this score than HC. )-- she is a walking, talking, influence-peddling machine. Pursuing the basest cronyism is her whole point and purpose. She gets up in the morning in order to go into the marketplace and sell her influence and Insider's-connections to wealthy bidders.

... "an in dealing with the press,"

True. It's not a federal criminal offense to lie to the press and they cannot compel her to speak under oath and pain of perjury.

... "a nostalgia for the Clinton White House years,"

nostalgia for a fantasy view of it.

..."and generally high approval ratings for Obama."

Obama's approval-ratings are terrible--and, at that, theyre still better than he deserves.

"Being a woman is both a strength and a weakness, in terms of getting votes."

to our general discredit.

28proximity1
Redigeret: aug 13, 2016, 4:21 am



(excerpted from thefederalist.com:

"6 Problems With Media’s Hysterical Reaction To Trump’s ISIS Comments"

by Mollie Hemingway

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/12/6-problems-with-medias-hysterical-reaction-t...

... (Sahil) Kapur’s tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the same point. The Guardian headline was “Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is the ‘founder of Isis’.”

You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this narrative is.

Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that’s definitely not all. How hard is it to listen for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.

First off, let’s note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says “I’m a person that doesn’t like insulting people” a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check: Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says “I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS. Trump says:


DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? **

(Note: emphasis added here is my own. "P1". (See below: **)


Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.

Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you’re saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake? Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS’s most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn’t like the way he’s phrasing all this! And here’s where journalists might want to put on their thinking caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he’d say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn’t say they created it:


HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.

DT: Well, I disagree.

HH: All right, that’s okay.

DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.

HH: That’s…

DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.

HH: That’s true.

DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.

DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?


Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama’s policies as Hewitt did, the media either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama’s policies, they do talk about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.

No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running ISIS’ operations. He flat-out admits he’s speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover it.

4) Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal:

People accuse their political opponents of being responsible for bad things all the time. Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS’ top recruiter. Bush’s CIA and NSA chief said Trump was a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making a completely false claim of Republican’s literal ties to ISIS:

Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain said Obama was “directly responsible” for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with the terror group. President Obama said he couldn’t think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck, so did President Obama.

There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn’t pretend it’s unique to Trump.

5) Missing Actual Problems with His Comments
Huge kudos to BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump’s comments. He didn’t pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed something much more problematic with Trump’s comments.

Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama’s Iraq policy — that the withdrawal of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish — in making the claim.

‘He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,’ Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. ‘The way he removed our troops — you shouldn’t have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.’ (Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) ‘The way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?’ Trump later said.

( ** ) But lost in Trump’s immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later 2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.

Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It’s a devastating critique and a far smarter one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.

{ ** MY NOTE: In Trump's defense, again, the point is--or ought to be--clear: it's the way Obama handled the withdrawal--and the circumstances in which he chose to implement it-- which Trump criticizes. Obama inherited the mess of Iraq from his predecessor Bush, just as Nixon inherited the mess of the Vietnam war from his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. And like Nixon did with the Vietnam war, Obama, instead of promptly getting out of it, carried on with the former-president's policies, making the war his own. }


6) We’re Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy
Let’s think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush’s Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina rewarded him with a victory.

Here’s the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming Obama had operational control over ISIS’ day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover widespread dissatisfaction with this country’s foreign policy, whether it’s coming from George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

Many Americans are rather sick of this country’s way of fighting wars, where enemies receive decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly managed instead of actually dealt with.

Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn’t have to be forced into it. Crowds are cheering Trump’s hard statements about Obama and Clinton’s policies in the Middle East because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided, aimless efforts there.

The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.

29JGL53
aug 13, 2016, 12:22 pm

All well and good, proximity1. You tell'um, buddy.

But the political reality now is that HRC is up around 7 to 8 per cent over trump. This has been a slow rise from about 1 per cent over the last two or three weeks.

I see no reason why that should not only hold steady but move up to a mid-teens lead for Clinton over the next month, or month and a half.

But if my punditry crashes, and HRC and trump are tied within the margin of error on, say, Oct. 1, then we will have something to yammer about back and forth.

I really doubt very much that such will be the case. But, to coin a phrase, we shall see what we shall see.

30artturnerjr
Redigeret: aug 14, 2016, 3:25 pm

>11 proximity1:

I'm sorry, but I can't help but see what you are doing in terms of comparing Clinton and Trump as false equivalence. Referring back to the Washington Post editorial that I linked to in the previous iteration of this thread*, in Trump we have a candidate that has:

- mocked a disabled reporter

- proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States

- attacked a judge based on his ethnicity

- celebrated violence at his rallies

- demeaned women

- promised to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants

- vaulted to political prominence with race-based attacks on the incumbent president

- launched his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists

What has Clinton done that is comparable to any of those things?

Your view of Clinton seems to be that she is a dangerous sociopath that is extremely adept at hiding her disorder. Perhaps this the case. It is certainly true that one the primary characteristics of the sociopath is that they are extremely good at hiding this disorder; this is borne out both in the literature on the illness and my personal experience. But I just don't see it. If she is elected president in November (which appears to be increasingly likely), this disorder should become plainly evident rather quickly. If this is the case, I will certainly owe you a very profound apology.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-are-unpopular-only-one-is-a-threat/...

31SomeGuyInVirginia
aug 14, 2016, 4:50 pm

>21 LolaWalser: My friend, you may be right.

32SimonW11
aug 14, 2016, 6:51 pm

The absolute worse predictions I see about a Hillary presidency seem to boil down to business as usual. Certainly when I look at her web site I see a mass of policies that boil down to a gentle amble in the direction of social inclusion. Donald Trump? well those policies that have made it onto his web page are certainly ambitious... and crackpot. Seriously he really is going to try and make Mexico pay for a wall. It is not just rhetoric. My personal opinion is Trump would usher in an era of rule by whim rather than policy. Even things that seem thought through rarely make it to his policy page. What happened to the tax credits for working mothers child care for example? it seemed like a real thing but now its forgotten.

33rkchr
aug 14, 2016, 7:44 pm

I live in Georgia and this year I have enjoyed listening to the political talk show that we have 2x a week. Georgia has been a pretty republican voting state for many years.
The latest polls in Georgia are showing Trump / Clinton being even. If he can’t get a lead in a state where Clinton spends no money and is usually Republican, does he really even have a slight chance?
After he was the nominee, Republic operatives on the panel were doing the “I am going to vote for Trump because Clinton is awful”. With Trump’s recent nonsense, they are not able to bring themselves to say they will vote for him this week (although they will still say the anti-Clinton part). Maybe he will cause less mayhem next week and they will be able to say they are going to vote for him again.

This is the particular show :
http://gpbnews.org/programs/political-rewind

34artturnerjr
aug 14, 2016, 8:06 pm

>33 rkchr:

The latest polls in Georgia are showing Trump / Clinton being even.

She was actually ahead there in a couple of early-August polls.* And yes, that's rather remarkable in a state that hasn't gone blue in a presidential election in almost a quarter of a century.

* http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/

35theoria
aug 14, 2016, 8:34 pm

The southern states were Mr Sanders' Appomattox against Ms Clinton. They could play the same role in Trump's campaign.

36artturnerjr
aug 14, 2016, 10:58 pm

>35 theoria:

They could play the same role in Trump's campaign.

Definitely. There are more than a few southeastern states (e.g., Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi) that have relatively high percentages of minorities and/or college-educated people - demographics that favor Clinton and disfavor Trump. Moving to the southwest, you see something similar in Arizona, which also has a higher-than-average Mormon population, another demographic that dislikes Trump.

More info:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/?ex...
https://thinkprogress.org/mormons-detest-donald-trump-heres-why-1be9024d6964#.mq...

37theoria
aug 15, 2016, 12:30 am

>36 artturnerjr: I look forward to the recriminations if Trump loses the popular vote by +10 (as per Nate Silver). There will be blood.

38artturnerjr
aug 15, 2016, 1:19 am

>37 theoria:

One can only imagine. "Trump" could easily become synonymous with "sore loser" in the common parlance.

39RickHarsch
aug 15, 2016, 4:22 am

>38 artturnerjr: I tend to think the pre-ordained violence accompanying a Trump defeat is overdone, particularly as I think his defeat will be the clear result long before election day.

40artturnerjr
aug 15, 2016, 11:21 am

>39 RickHarsch:

Well, I thought there was going to be a great deal of violence at the RNC in Cleveland this year. I was wrong about that, so hopefully I'm wrong about this, too.

41JGL53
aug 15, 2016, 11:58 am

> 40, et. al.

Well, yes. Remember when Harry Reid was reelected and, during the election his republican opponent Sharron Angle famously said that if she were to be defeated there might need to be some sort of "second amendment remedy"? Apparently trump borrowed this line from her campaign.

After the election there was no violence directed at Reid. In fact the only violent act he suffered was when he smacked himself in the face with some sort of gym equipment and almost lost an eye.

Self-inflicted wounds are the most common kind in politics.

LOL.

42RickHarsch
aug 15, 2016, 12:01 pm

>41 JGL53: Though with Gerry Ford it was fifty-fifty if I recall.

43southernbooklady
aug 15, 2016, 12:19 pm

>34 artturnerjr: She was actually ahead there in a couple of early-August polls.* And yes, that's rather remarkable in a state that hasn't gone blue in a presidential election in almost a quarter of a century.

* http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/


I was a little surprised at the margin 538 has given Hillary in North Carolina. I would have thought it would have been around the 50/50 mark, or tipping towards Trump, but it they have the state leaning noticeably into the blue. It makes me wonder why and what polls they are using, because despite the overall disillusionment with our Republican-led state legislature, not to mention the Governor, my impression has been that culturally the state has not actually shifted that much, and mostly supports the kinds of things Trump has made his platform: anti-immigration legislation, broad latitude for exercising gun rights, a general distrust of "liberal" political causes, etc. Unless the demographics of the state has really changed I don't think any of those issues have lost importance with the kind of voter who kept Jesse Helms in office for about 150 years.

44krazy4katz
aug 15, 2016, 1:34 pm

>43 southernbooklady: The funny thing about North Carolina is that, despite their (deservedly) conservative Republican reputation, they often had one Republican and one Democratic senator. This was until rather recently (last 12 years?), when they went Republican for both seats. Maybe this is the year NC will go back to being a split state with the possibility of voting more blue.

45JGL53
aug 15, 2016, 3:21 pm

I am familiar with the counting chickens before they hatch situation and all but I think Andy here has succinctly stated the state of the race at present and reasons for a very high probability it will continue along in the same vein:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/heres-why-you-can-stick-a_b_11510408.h...

Anyway don't be too complacent, HillaryBots, get out there and vote early and often - but it sure does seem the election is heading in the direction wherein HRC will inexorably achieve her ultimate dream. And then, PARTY TIME! - and Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money!

46prosfilaes
aug 15, 2016, 8:30 pm

>43 southernbooklady: It makes me wonder why and what polls they are using

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/north-carolina/#plus

57-43 isn't that far from 50-50. And you can look at the list of polls; the July-August ones have her at -4, +2, +6 and +9.

47lriley
aug 15, 2016, 9:24 pm

#46--14 points in August is pretty much insurmountable. What 538 neglects is the Johnson/Stein effect though if anything I would suspect Johnson would draw more away from Trump in NC than Stein would draw away from Hillary.

What I have seen is South Carolina and Georgia are both up for grabs and the fact that they are up for grabs and not solidly in Trump's favor with only a couple months to go is not a good sign at all for Trump. A big turnout for Johnson in either of these states would be an automatic win for Clinton.

I'd also note I've look at state by state polls and a lot of them have 15-20% and at least a couple others higher %'s of voters choosing neither Trump nor Clinton--but third parties. Generally Clinton though is outperforming Trump all over the map--in the battleground states and apart from Texas in the states with the most electoral votes. I have little doubt that Clinton is going to win the election in November--the libertarians and the greens are going to do really well though.

48JGL53
aug 15, 2016, 11:39 pm

> 47

I keep seeing polls that show Johnson getting up to 9 or 10 per cent and Stein still mired around 3 or 4 per cent so, yes, I think trump is hurt more by third party voters than HRC is - to the contrary of what many HillaryBots had feared. Looks like the BernieBros will not be having a serious impact on the election.

49prosfilaes
aug 16, 2016, 2:28 am

>47 lriley: What 538 neglects is the Johnson/Stein effect though if anything I would suspect Johnson would draw more away from Trump in NC than Stein would draw away from Hillary.

They've got numbers for Johnson in almost all the NC polls. If you look at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#plus , they're apparently docking both Trump and Clinton 0.9% for third parties omitted from the polls.

the libertarians and the greens are going to do really well though.

I think Johnson will stay under 10% and no electoral votes, and that Stein won't beat Nader's showing in 2000 for 2.74%. I'd put a twenty on it, easy, but not real money. I'd put real money on Johnson staying under 17% and Stein under 6%, and Stein getting no electoral votes.

50SimonW11
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 3:14 am

I have heard that it is not unusual for Georgians to toy with the idea of voting for the Democratic nominee at this stage. Shrugs, I am not going to research it.
as to N Carolina. I see the Democratic party supporters there as particularly committed. They will be working hard to get out the vote.

51proximity1
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 9:03 am

Last night's incident at New York's Kennedy International airport involving
travellers who panicked simply because they saw others around them running in panic--none with any clear idea of why or of what, if anything, was actually going on--reminds me of U.S. voters who are terrified at the prospect of Trump being elected president but have no reasoned case for their fears or any respectable evidence behind them which can stand up to scrutiny.

52margd
aug 16, 2016, 10:34 am

Early Voting Limits Donald Trump’s Time to Turn Campaign Around
By PATRICK HEALY AUG. 16, 2016

...“Hillary’s getting into early voting details while Trump can’t get past making awful sound bites,” said Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist and media consultant. “The idea that he can fix things and win over swing voters in the final week or two — that’s not how elections are won anymore. It’s wishful thinking.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/early-voting-limits-donald-trumps-...

53proximity1
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 11:29 am

(Reuters (1 hour ago))


Tue Aug 16, 2016 | 9:49 AM EDT

Clinton names Obama veterans to White House transition team

-------
(press photo cut-line:)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Joe Biden stopped to visit Biden's childhood home in Scranton, Pennsylvania, August 15, 2016. REUTERS/Charles Mostoller
----------------

By Luciana Lopez | WEST HARRISON, N.Y.
(Reuters) - Looking to lay the groundwork for her presidency if she wins the White House in November, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton named several veterans of President Barack Obama's administration for her transition team on Tuesday.

Ken Salazar, a former interior secretary and U.S. Senator from Colorado, will lead a team of four co-chairs including one-time national security adviser Tom Donilon and Neera Tanden, a former Obama aide who now leads the progressive Center for American Progress think-tank, the Clinton campaign said.

The other co-chairs are former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and Maggie Williams, director of Harvard's Institute of Politics, the campaign said in a statement.

The announcement came as Clinton has gained momentum ...


Lol!

Maybe she'll move in before Hallowe'en. She can throw a big Hallowe'en party, bathe the White House in orange flood-lights and dress as a ....

---------

ETA : LOL! Redux :

Trump was even more premature--

... "Trump, a New York businessman who has never held elected office, picked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to head his own transition team in May."

54proximity1
aug 16, 2016, 12:09 pm

>30 artturnerjr:

I've been meaning to come back to this (see the italicized portion in the following citation) to ask you to elaborate on this as I'm quite interested in learning how you'd recognize this :


... "Your view of Clinton seems to be that she is a dangerous sociopath that is extremely adept at hiding her disorder. Perhaps this the case. It is certainly true that one the primary characteristics of the sociopath is that they are extremely good at hiding this disorder; this is borne out both in the literature on the illness and my personal experience. But I just don't see it. If she is elected president in November (which appears to be increasingly likely), this disorder should become plainly evident rather quickly. If this is the case, I will certainly owe you a very profound apology.


Why is this so? And what would you look for as the plainly evident indications coming soon after her taking office?

By the way--wouldn't the plainly evident signs be just as apparent before she's elected to that office? We ought to see them already, right?

55theoria
aug 16, 2016, 12:55 pm

The reason for Mr Trump's endorsement of Mr Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine and skepticism towards the US relationship to NATO becomes clearer.

"...The man addressing them was Viktor Yanukovich, who at this point – autumn 2007 – was Ukraine’s pro-Russian prime minister. Three years earlier he had tried to cheat his way to victory in the country’s presidential election, triggering the pro-democracy uprising known as the Orange Revolution, which swept Yanukovich’s rival Viktor Yushchenko into power.

Now, barely three years later, Yanukovich was back, and his Party of Regions was ahead in the polls.

The person who masterminded Yanukovich’s unlikely political comeback was not – as might have been expected – a Russian, like the advisers dispatched by Vladimir Putin to mastermind Yanukovich’s disastrous 2004 presidential bid.

It was an American, and his name was Paul Manafort – previously a consultant for Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bob Dole, and today the campaign chairman for Donald Trump.

Manafort’s years in Ukraine have come under renewed scrutiny during the current US presidential campaign. On Monday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign leapt on a report in the New York Times that handwritten ledgers found in the Ukraine show $12.7m in undisclosed payments to Manafort from the Party of Regions."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/16/donald-trump-campaign-paul-manaf...

56St._Troy
aug 16, 2016, 1:21 pm

The first clue that Trump isn't done is the fact that the HuffPo has (predictably) pronounced his campaign dead (I'm going to need to see a bit more than that).

While I do follow polls, and they are occasionally interesting and informative, their significance is quite limited (due to the facts that all polls are necessarily of a tiny slice of the population, there's always another poll with different results right around the corner, and answering a poll question is not the same as casting a vote); any lead, therefore, is surmountable.

With conventional candidates, we can get away with the usual "weighted average/add up the proper demographic- and geographic-oriented polls to get the likely result" approach, but I expect Trump's appeal to cut across demographic groups in interesting ways (and perhaps it won't be anywhere near enough to win; I'm not predicting a Trump victory); we just won't know it's impact, however, until the actual vote - this is the ultimate "stay tuned" election.

57proximity1
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 1:38 pm

>55 theoria:

So if I understand you: you're scandalized by high-level international influence-peddling, don't like an oligarchic kleptocracy like Yanukovich's or Putin's meddling in U.S. electoral politics and so you're backing the Clintons-- Washington's premier influence-peddlers and the most-devoted backers of our own oligarchic kleptocracy--and it doesn't even bother you that to get to her appointment with her coronation's ceremonies, the Clintons used Putin-&-Yanukovich-like back-scratching tactics and underhanded manoeuvres to get the Sanders opposition--a genuine progressive good-government type, out of the running and out of the way.

I see.

Like Captain Renaud, you're shocked, shocked! to find that gambling has been going on on the premises!

Got it.

I wonder what else is in the Clintons' e-mails that Hillary and Bill refused to allow the F.B.I. to see.

But you're for her, for them.

Like the song goes,

"I just met you,
And this is cra-zy!
But here's my number--
So call me maybe ...."

-----

As long as the oligarchic Republocrat duopoly is firmly in command, all these would-be hair-on-fire outrages amount to so much tiddly-winks small-time stuff by comparison.

If you're content to go on keeping our kleptocrat oligarchs in power indefinitely, then running scare-stories such as Putin's meddling is just funny in a hypocritical sort of way. Get back to me when you find your perspective and your missing moral-compass.

58St._Troy
aug 16, 2016, 1:35 pm

>28 proximity1:: "Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn’t have to be forced into it."

Indeed - it seems that a thoughtful, attentive spectator of this campaign who dislikes Trump would still find him/herself disagreeing with the media's criticisms of him on a daily basis. What this campaign is teaching me about the press is far more troubling than what it's teaching me about the candidates.

59St._Troy
aug 16, 2016, 1:43 pm

>30 artturnerjr: "Your view of Clinton seems to be that she is a dangerous sociopath that is extremely adept at hiding her disorder."

To what disorder do you refer? (In a quick review of the thread, I did not see it; apologies if this has been clearly stated here somewhere, and I understand you were addressing someone else's comment here and weren't necessarily supporting the notion of the disorder's existence yourself).

I have seen things online about her stumbling, and then there is the cough (a cough!), but none of what I have seen has been very persuasive (the recent "Hillary stumbling into Biden" thing was nothing), and I'm genuinely interested as to what might be out there. (For the record, I'm not a Hillary apologist who would be blind to anti-Hillary evidence; I just haven't seen anything remotely persuasive).

60jjwilson61
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 2:54 pm

30 artturnerjr: "Your view of Clinton seems to be that she is a dangerous sociopath that is extremely adept at hiding her disorder."

To what disorder do you refer?

>59 St._Troy: Try reading that sentence again.

61JGL53
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 3:00 pm

> 59

"...I'm not a Hillary apologist who would be blind to anti-Hillary evidence; I just haven't seen anything remotely persuasive."

Jesus Fucking Christ - I have addressed this very thing for literally months now on LT Pro Con forum with literally dozens of posts.

I'll be god damned if I am going to repeat all that one more time for your benefit.

If you want to find out what the anti-Hillary evidence is you are invited to research all my postings here - if you are that interested in being informed - I have laid it all out for all interested parties.

If not, well then DUH - who gives a shit? - I don't and you don't.

62theoria
aug 16, 2016, 3:41 pm

A right-wing pundit vets Mr Trump's "extreme vetting" plan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/16/trump-flunks-his-o...

63St._Troy
aug 16, 2016, 4:34 pm

>60 jjwilson61:

Being a sociopath is the disorder in question? I thought the implication was that being a sociopath enabled one to hide something else (I may well be wrong - just asking).

64St._Troy
aug 16, 2016, 4:35 pm

>61 JGL53:

Sorry to offend! I haven't read too many politically-oriented threads on LT; I'll take a look.

65krazy4katz
aug 16, 2016, 4:40 pm

>64 St._Troy: It is impossible to read all of them. Don't worry about offending people on Pro and Con. I also almost never come here and my observation is that offending people is just part of the way things operate.

66lriley
aug 16, 2016, 5:55 pm

#65--maybe some people are just too easily offended?

American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union has--since Yeltsin's government failed--been determined to recreate the cold war. And instead of ramping down weapons programs and our military thumbprint around the globe since Yeltsin we've ramped them up--continuing to feed our obese military industrial interests. And instead of investing in infrastructure/domestic policies like we might have--our leaders have distracted us with a bunch of bullshit foreign policy crises' and fed us with all this superpower horseshit and invested instead into making us into the most belligerent nation on the planet. This isn't to say that Putin is a good guy but our guys haven't been so very hot either.

67jjwilson61
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 6:12 pm

>63 St._Troy: Being a sociopath is the disorder in question?

That's how I interpret what Art said. It seems like the obvious reading to me.

68krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 8:57 pm

>66 lriley: "maybe some people are just too easily offended?"

I don't know. I don't think so, but I understand that is just how this group works. It takes some getting used to if one only posts on the other groups. Just a different environment.

69lriley
aug 16, 2016, 9:23 pm

#68---it's not the same as talking about an author or a genre of books you like. When it comes to political discussion between all comers it's inevitable that there are going to be conflicting opinions on any number of issues or on any politicians being discussed.

70krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 10:18 pm

>69 lriley: Well, there are ways of saying something that is inflammatory and ways to disagree politely. I would say the interest in being polite takes a backseat to elucidating the disagreement. Again, that just seems to be the way this group works. If one posts here, one has to put up with that.

71lriley
Redigeret: aug 16, 2016, 11:11 pm

#70--not every personality is the same. Some by their very nature are more forceful than others. Moods can change too. One day everything might be going right for somebody and they'll be happy as all get out and the next day everything is shit....and it can reflect on what or how they post.

It's interesting back in the late 90's Amo Houghton the republican then representing my district in Congress went into the well of the house asking members of both sides to be less divisive and nice to each other. He got a number of other mostly republican congressmen/women to jump on his bandwagon over the next few days and they were going to have meetings and seminars with the idea of making politesse and statesmanship their goal for the new century. As republicans go Mr. Corning Inc. Houghton really wasn't that bad of a guy. He was a moderate and one of the handful of republicans in Congress to not give George W. the go ahead for invading Iraq. Well I remember my dad saying he was a combat marine (whether WWII or Korea I'm not sure). Anyway there was a lot of blah, blah, blah about his idea at the time but pretty much it was an idea that was never going anywhere.

The point of all this is the so-called adults--the politicians whether they're democrats or republicans that legislate and can have a major impact on political decision making in the House and the Senate are running roughshod over each other all the time and have been doing that since I can remember and well before. You could tell them to be less inflammatory towards each other too and see where that gets you.

72prosfilaes
aug 16, 2016, 11:56 pm

>55 theoria: The reason for Mr Trump's endorsement of Mr Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine

When Trump said that Crimea was part of Russia, that was one of the things he's said that wasn't really shocking. It is, short of a war that nobody wants to undertake. Even today, enough of the Ukrainians have left that a popular vote would keep it part of Russia. I don't know we--the US, the EU, the world--should acknowledge that, but it will happen at some point.

73krazy4katz
aug 16, 2016, 11:58 pm

>71 lriley: I don't disagree with you. Of course there will always be some anger and irritation when the topics are important. It's just that maybe more could get done if the pols stopped insulting each other. I just get tired of it.

74davidgn
aug 17, 2016, 12:11 am

>55 theoria: >72 prosfilaes:
https://pando.com/2014/03/17/the-war-nerd-everything-you-know-about-crimea-is-wr...

Written by a guy, please keep in mind, who left the most stable and enjoyable employment of his life -- as a professor of English at the University of Otago -- to go to Russia to work with Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi on The Exile in Moscow, only to be reduced to nomadism (and literal homelessness, for a spell, in Canada) when the Putin regime forced that publication to close.

75artturnerjr
aug 17, 2016, 12:15 am

>54 proximity1:

By the way--wouldn't the plainly evident signs be just as apparent before she's elected to that office? We ought to see them already, right?

Yes, I believe that's correct. I guess what I was trying to get at is that one would think that for someone like HRC, who has been in the nation spotlight for almost a quarter-century now, would probably have obviously manifested the symptoms of sociopathy (or, to use the more clinically correct term, antisocial personality disorder) in ways that are clearly perceivable to the general public.* However, if said symptoms are not already clearly perceivable, they certainly will be under the 24/7 scrutiny that the POTUS is placed under.

So where do you sit on this one? Is Hill fruit loops or not?

*One could argue that she already has. I was looking at the Mayo Clinic page on ASPD (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/dxc-20198978) and thinking that you could make a fair argument that she has already displayed some of these symptoms.

>59 St._Troy: ff.

Yeah, Jeff/jjwilson61 is right - I was referring to sociopathy (aka antisocial personality disorder).

76prosfilaes
aug 17, 2016, 1:54 am

>74 davidgn: Written by a guy, please keep in mind, who left the most stable and enjoyable employment of his life -- as a professor of English at the University of Otago

Wow. Mental illness sucks. I'm trying to avoid being flippant, but the only way I can see a professor of English at a reputable university producing the shit you linked to is him being mentally ill. Otherwise a professor of English could produce a competent position paper, and this isn't. I don't know where it's going, but I do know that it's just filled with diversions from that direction, slagging off random people just because.

So what point were you trying to make when you posted that?

77prosfilaes
aug 17, 2016, 2:27 am

>56 St._Troy: their significance is quite limited (due to the facts that all polls are necessarily of a tiny slice of the population, there's always another poll with different results right around the corner, and answering a poll question is not the same as casting a vote)

On the day before the last Presidential election, Nate Silver got 50 for 50 on the way states would vote. That's not 83 days in advance, but it's evidence that there's enough information in polls to predict the election exactly.

I expect Trump's appeal to cut across demographic groups in interesting ways

What's the evidence for that? Everything I've seen says that white males without college education are Trump's base, and if anything he's more demographically limited than previous Republican candidates.

78davidgn
Redigeret: aug 17, 2016, 3:25 am

>76 prosfilaes: First of all, he's writing under a pseudonym ("Brecher"), and in character. Secondly, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a position paper. This is gonzo political analysis and media criticism, a period piece responding to the howls of incoherent fury we saw from political commentators in 2014 when Putin occupied Crimea. It's not Dolan's best work, but I gather the real problem is that the genre is not to your liking. De gustibus non est disputandum...

Finally, the point I was trying to make, which Dolan also makes in his very colorful but also basically sound way, is roughly the same one that you were making: Crimea is Russian, both de facto and for many other legitimate reasons. To pretend any differently is wishful thinking.

If you'd like to see the same point made in a more formal fashion (though rather less entertainingly), I might find the time to dig something up that's more to your liking. ETA: Off the top of my head: https://blog.nader.org/2014/03/21/obama-putin-say/

ETA: And here's Mearsheimer's very memorable salvo: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis...

I'd like to share a piece by Stephen F. Cohen on the question, but all I can find are interviews.

79proximity1
Redigeret: aug 18, 2016, 11:57 am

>75 artturnerjr:

"So where do you sit on this one? Is Hill fruit loops or not?"

It would help me-- not to mention others reading this--if we avoided all these vague expressions for mental disorder --whether it's "fruit loops" or, to me, the equally-vague "anti-social personality disorder"-- and instead deal with specifics. For example: what are the demands of this office specifically and which, if any, are these candidates more or less capable of meeting? Or, choose your own topic of priority: "Is HC capable of __"X"__?"

I think HC is not reliably able to deal fairly with issues which pit the interests of average Americans against those of a wealthy elite, to which latter group she both personally identifies by choice and belongs by objective fact. I think she's morally unfit for the office as well as being seriously lacking in sound judgement. But moral competence can't be neatly separated from one's general psychological make-up. It's a feature of it.

I don't believe Trump would have taken Clinton's course regarding the private off-campus e-mail server. Though he surely has the sort of things in his personal affairs which, if they were HC's, she'd try to block their coming to light.

I think Trump says many things which HC herself believes but wouldn't say simply because it's unfortunately impolitic to be candid. For me, that's a point in Trump's favor and against HC.

Both DT & H&BC are people with psychological profiles which I'd prefer to never see in a president of the U.S.--but I'd say the same about most modern American presidents*-- Barack Obama, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Kerry*, John McCain*, all the Rep. challengers* DT bested in the recent primaries, and on and on. I object to Lyndon Johnson, Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter for different reasons.

I expect that both DT & the C's would give the poor and the ordinarily disadvantaged citizens the shit-end of the stick in many and probably most cases--by contrast, I know for a fact that the Clintons did so over and over again the last time Americans trusted them to hold an elected office.

But I believe there are some very important exceptions in which Trump would favor the interests of the average person --even if that's only due to a coincidence by which that policy option accords both with what DT prefers for his own selfish reasons and what the average person's interests would recommend.

-------
(* or contenders for that office.)

80proximity1
Redigeret: aug 17, 2016, 3:19 am

>77 prosfilaes: : ... " That's not 83 days in advance, but it's evidence that there's enough information in polls to predict the election exactly."

Or it's a fluke which he neither can nor shall ever produce again.

81prosfilaes
Redigeret: aug 17, 2016, 4:24 am

>78 davidgn: I gather the real problem is that the genre is not to your liking. De gustibus non est disputandum...

No, the genre is not my liking. But de gustibus non est disputandum simply doesn't apply to communication; one can certainly judge how effectively an article communicates, and that didn't. Perhaps it did so better in its original context, but unstructured rants are simply not good at communicating information or a point.

Crimea is Russian, both de facto and for many other legitimate reasons.

Russia signed treaties with Ukraine that said that Russia would not try to take Crimea or any other part of Ukraine. Some might presume that a treaty should protect the sovereignty of a country.

https://blog.nader.org/2014/03/21/obama-putin-say/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis...


Back to back, this is anti-Americanism.

"He (Putin) responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West." This is the West's fault--that's the title of the article.

"they (Obama's actions) infringe upon national sovereignties with deadly drones, flyovers and secret forays by soldiers"

You can adopt realpolitik and say that Ukraine and Yemen basically have no rights the big countries are going to respect, and it's a farce to act like they do. You can accept the general moral claims that national sovereignty and treaties matter, no matter how small the nation involved. But you don't get to argue that the US is wrong in attacking suspected terrorists in Yemen and Russia is okay in taking Crimea and destabilizing Ukraine.

82theoria
aug 17, 2016, 11:17 am

Another winning move:

"Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/politics/donald-trump-stephen-bannon-paul-m...

Mr Trump's appeal will shrink down to the Stormfront demographic.

83proximity1
Redigeret: aug 17, 2016, 11:56 am

>82 theoria:

The mere association of the term "winning"--even sarcastically, even facetiously--with anything or anyone concerning this election speaks to a profound disconnection between the stark reality of the inevitable loss which shall ensue for the country in its entirety and the fantasy belief that Clinton vs. Trump, Stein & Johnson might hold even a fleetingly redeeming feature in a collective electoral act.

The most certain aspect of it no matter the outcome-- but above all if Clinton is elected-- is described by the terms "loss," "waste," "delusional folly," and "insult."

There will be no "winners" from this election, only varying degrees of losers.

No matter the outcome of this election, I expect July 4th, 2017 to be the occasion of a surreal experience of nationally-felt sullenness and dejection.

84SomeGuyInVirginia
aug 17, 2016, 12:46 pm

The LA Times daily poll gives Clinton a 1 point lead over Trump, with Trump rising to meet Hillary falling.

The Economist, Reuters, Bloomberg, NBC and the LA Times all show Clinton in the lead, although her numbers are down slightly from a few days ago.

85theoria
aug 17, 2016, 2:12 pm

>84 SomeGuyInVirginia: State polls are what matter now. Mr Trump has no electoral path to the Presidency at the moment.

86prosfilaes
aug 17, 2016, 11:21 pm

>85 theoria: State polls are what matter now. Mr Trump has no electoral path to the Presidency at the moment.

538 posted an article showing that a popular vote/electoral vote split is unlikely if there's even a 1 or 2% difference between the candidates. (Gore won the popular vote by 0.5%.)

http://www.270towin.com/maps/270toWin-Electoral-Map shows that the consensus is Clinton has over 270 electoral votes locked up. But that's based on her being 5-7 points up; if she loses 6 points in the national polls, then she probably will lose 6 points in Pennsylvania, which would be just enough to bump it over into Trump's column, which, with the states marked grey on that map, would give Trump the victory.

State polls map more precisely to victory, but national polls are a good enough proxy for many things.

87artturnerjr
aug 18, 2016, 10:58 am

>77 prosfilaes:

Everything I've seen says that white males without college education are Trump's base, and if anything he's more demographically limited than previous Republican candidates.

Yep:

http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/07/2_6.png

>79 proximity1:

Thank you for clarifying.

Both DT & H&BC are people with psychological profiles which I'd prefer to never see in a president of the U.S.--but I'd say the same about most modern American presidents-- Barack Obama, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Kerry, John McCain, all the Rep. challengers DT bested in the recent primaries, and on and on.

That's logical. Anybody who says to themselves, "Hey! I think I'd be a great US president!" is probably a least a little more narcissistic/egomaniacal than is healthy.

>82 theoria:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

88theoria
aug 18, 2016, 2:32 pm

>87 artturnerjr: Now he's losing his base:

"Donald J. Trump’s support among white men, the linchpin of his presidential campaign, is showing surprising signs of weakness that could foreclose his only remaining path to victory in November...

Surveys of voters nationwide and in battleground states conducted over the last two weeks showed that Mr. Trump was even with or below where Mitt Romney, the Republican Party nominee four years ago, was with white men when he won that demographic by an overwhelming 27 percentage points.

For Mr. Trump, who has staked much of his legitimacy as a candidate on his strength in the polls, the numbers are a dose of cold, dangerous math. If he does not perform any better than Mr. Romney did with white men, he will almost certainly be unable to rally the millions of disaffected white voters he says will propel him to the White House." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html?hp&amp...

89krazy4katz
Redigeret: aug 18, 2016, 3:36 pm

>88 theoria: "For Mr. Trump, who has staked much of his legitimacy as a candidate on his strength in the polls, the numbers are a dose of cold, dangerous math. If he does not perform any better than Mr. Romney did with white men, he will almost certainly be unable to rally the millions of disaffected white voters he says will propel him to the White House." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html?hp&amp...."

Let's hope he is not smart enough to realize that. I don't want him to take corrective action that might actually work.

90artturnerjr
Redigeret: aug 18, 2016, 5:43 pm

>88 theoria:

That's not all. Looking at the results from that Pew Research Center poll that I posted a link to back in >87 artturnerjr: (it's the first link), I was sort of mildly surprised to see that he was polling at 7% as preference for president among black voters back in June of this year. Obviously, this is not great, but it is better than where either John McCain or Mitt Romney were polling at among blacks at the same point in their respective campaigns.

Now we have this paragraph from the NYT article you linked to:

Self-identified Republicans, white women, the wealthy and well-educated people of all races are turning their backs on him. Two national polls have recently put his support from African-Americans at an astonishing 1 percent. Separate Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist surveys in Ohio and Pennsylvania from July found that zero percent of black voters said they planned to vote for him. The latest poll of Latinos, conducted within the last week by Fox News, had Mr. Trump with just 20 percent support, below the 27 percent that Mr. Romney received in 2012. (My emphasis)

Look at that sentence I put in boldface again: "Separate Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist surveys in Ohio and Pennsylvania from July found that zero percent of black voters said they planned to vote for him." What?!? In those two states, both swing states, they couldn't find one black person in one hundred that said they would vote for him. He couldn't alienate that demographic more than he already has if he tried.

>89 krazy4katz:

Let's hope he is not smart enough to realize that. I don't want him to take corrective action that might actually work.

I take it from his latest campaign management shake-up that Trump is increasingly not interested in engaging reality in any significant way. Stephen Bannon seems to have been selected primarily to act as a yes-man to Trump (I think this is true of Roger Ailes and Kellyanne Conway as well, although to a somewhat lesser degree). They seem to be there more to shield him from what's actually going on in the campaign than to really engage him in it. Anybody else here have any thoughts on this?

91LolaWalser
aug 20, 2016, 11:17 am

Canadian sandwich mocks Trump

Donald Trump Sandwich Trolls U.S. Candidate With Wall Of Mexican Chips

Windsor Sandwich Shop owner Lawrence Lavender’s “Trump sandwich” uses two pieces of white bread, is “full of bologna” and comes with a ramekin of Russian dressing. It also comes with a little pickle — not big — little.


92theoria
aug 21, 2016, 11:33 am

Sounds disgusting!

93LolaWalser
aug 21, 2016, 11:35 am

>92 theoria:

And just imagine, it could get served to you morning noon and night four years minimum!

The video is hilarious.

94theoria
aug 21, 2016, 12:36 pm

>93 LolaWalser: Noooooo!

95margd
Redigeret: aug 29, 2016, 6:22 am

So what will the Donald do after he loses? Will his star fade like Sarah Palin's? Will he devote his energy to poisoning HRH's presidency (a campaign nastier than his birther lies)? Will his efforts to redeem himself generate an openly racist, misogynist version of Tea Party? Will he give speeches at Republican events?

96artturnerjr
aug 29, 2016, 10:35 am

>95 margd:

He will assume his rightful position as King of the Orange People. :)

97davidgn
Redigeret: aug 29, 2016, 10:50 am

>96 artturnerjr:
Sadly, Trump and the USA Freedom Kids have parted ways, citing irreconcilable differences, but he does have another promising applicant for Court Musician.

98John5918
aug 29, 2016, 11:01 am

>96 artturnerjr: King of the Orange People

You mean he's going to Northern Ireland?

99lriley
Redigeret: aug 29, 2016, 1:27 pm

The republican party establishment doesn't like Donald now--when he gets blown out of the water by Hillary they're certainly not going to be sending him birthday or christmas cards--not for the way he ran in the primaries insulting all the other republican candidates nor for the way he's run his general election campaign which has set a new bar for what incompetence is. Yeah--he tapped into the tea party end of things but Cruz is tapped into the other end of that and they hate each other. He doesn't get to be McCain or Romney--a respected party elder after he gets walloped by Hillary. He's a different species altogether and they'll treat him as such.

He will still be a tv personality and the 24-7 news networks look at him as good for ratings--so expect television news media to run with that. As for HRC whoever becomes POTUS is going to be bashed whether they're doing good or whether they're not. It comes with the territory and anyone running for POTUS should already know that. If she cannot handle that she should not have run and that goes for any other prospective POTUS candidate.

100proximity1
Redigeret: sep 6, 2016, 11:00 am

from The New York Times : Where has Hillary Clinton been? Ask the Ultra-rich

By AMY CHOZICK and JONATHAN MARTIN | SEPTEMBER 3, 2016




At a private fund-raiser Tuesday night at a waterfront Hamptons estate, Hillary Clinton danced alongside Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi and Paul McCartney, and joined in a singalong finale to “Hey Jude.”

“I stand between you and the apocalypse,” a confident Mrs. Clinton declared to laughs, exhibiting a flash of self-awareness and humor to a crowd that included Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein and for whom the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency is dire.

Mr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley.
“It’s the old adage, you go to where the money is,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat. ••• •••



ETA:

¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?



(Washington Examiner)

From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

|
(photo cut-line text)
It's clear Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)



By BYRON YORK (@BYRONYORK) • 9/3/16 7:14 PM




This report presents a clear timeline of the dates on which key events occurred in the handling by Sec. of State Clinton or those of her office staff of her home-based computer-system and the e-mail traffic which went through it as well as the timing of formal requests and subpeonas issued by congressional committees investigating matters related to this e-mail traffic.

Two things emerge clearly from a review of the dates and events set out:

First : There is very serious ground for potential charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction of justice, giving false information to a federal law enforcement agent as well as the federal laws regulating the gamdling of official documents classified secret under intelligence agency rules.

Second : This affair shall persist, worsen significantly and follow Clinton no matter the outcomes of the November elections. It is not going away. More revelations which surpass for shock-value what has so far come to light are very likely. F.B.I. Director Comey won't come out of this with his rather good reputation in tact.

101proximity1
Redigeret: sep 5, 2016, 7:44 am

"A disaster if I'm not elected" !?

No.

For a candidate for the office of president of the United States to base her campaign on a central message which amounts to, in effect, "It would be a catastrophe if I'm not elected,"--for her to make that her core "argument" in a supposedly democratic, open and free and fair election ought to seen as a disgrace and the ploy of someone who has very, very little going for her.

If the election is fair, if the voters are informed, if they cast their ballots freely and according to their views of the facts and do all of this without any undue influence, without coercion or improper inducements--then how can the outcome be projected by one of the contenders as catastrophic if he or she is not elected?

In a free, fair and open democratic election the only catastrophe is if the proper fair procedure of the election is thwarted, corrupted, the voters cheated of their rightful part. That, and not any honestly-taken choice in the casting of a ballot--however mistaken the choice may later prove to be-- is the only thing that can respectably be described as a "catastrophe."

The contention, whether stated expressly or merely implied, that "It's a disaster if I'm not elected, " should be booed off the public stage, met with laughs and ridicule.

The voters' right to 'run the risk' of 'making a great mistake'--supposing for a moment that they had such--their right, that is, to choose from among a slate of candidates and, in choosing, to defy descriptions of their preferred choice as crazy, dangerous, unfit, by members of some factions opposed to those choices should be a given, something understood and granted as obvious and normal.

It's a perverse political order in which a supposedly respectable candidate for high office can describe her opponent's potential election as being, in itself, beyond the pale, outlandish, an affront to common sense and decency.

No. In a fair and open process, it is none of those.

Such weak candidates ought to instead examine themselves and their consciences.

---------------

Related: The insufferable arrogance of the elite and their rationalizations :

(published at American Greatness (amgreatness.com)) "It’s Not Us, It’s You: How Elites Rationalize This Year’s Voter Rebellion | August 31, 2016 by Chris Buskirk


It’s not us, it’s you. That’s the line being floated by Conservatism, Inc. to explain this year’s voter rebellion. And it’s not just voters that have run afoul of the conservative crossing guards, it’s their enablers on talk radio and at Fox News. Got that? This year it’s not the liberal media that’s to blame—it’s the conservative media. You might want to buy a program because the enemies list changes quickly.

Conor Friedersdorf at the The Atlantic, quoting the editor of RedState, claims it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault. National Review says it’s Fox News. But leave it to Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal to defend the punditocracy from the slings and arrows of the popular uprising against party leaders and the destructive policies they have pursued. Stephens claims that Trump voters (at least 80 percent of the Republican Party by most polls) see themselves as “America’s latest victim class” while casually equating Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s equally ruthless strongman Recep Erdogan.

Apparently, if you object to the alienation of voters, to the stretching to the breaking point of the link between the sovereign citizen and the government—between rulers and ruled—then you are self-pitying milksop, a loser in the meritocratic war for money and status who has brought this upon himself.

Calling a supermajority of Republican voters the nation’s newest victim class is pretty rich coming from Bret Stephens who is on the record wishing that Donald Trump would “be so decisvely rebuked that the Republican Party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson…” {Sound familiar?} Voters have already learned some hard lessons—that’s why they rejected every conventional candidate and nominated Donald Trump with 5 million more votes than any other Republican nominee in history on a platform of border control, common sense trade deals that put the interests of American citizens ahead of Wall Street, and an American nationalism that believes this country is at its best when citizens are served by government not the other way around.

Still, these critiques of Trump voters, which are arrogant when they’re not merely condescending, offer a good insight into the disconnect between voters and elites. These are not people looking for pity or scapegoats onto which to load their sins. But confused by Trump’s rapid rise and enduring appeal, that’s how pundits, pols, and the consultant community have chosen to understand it. To their minds Trump can only be understood as a base appeal to self-pity and “identity politics”—the term conservative writers use when they want to call Republican voters racists without actually saying it.

But it’s simpler than that, in fact, this is Occam’s Razor at it’s simplest. Trump voters are ordinary Americans, motivated by a core set of beliefs about the country that used to be a given, especially on the Right. It isn’t Republican voters who have changed, it is Republican leaders.

And globalism isn’t a bogeyman, it’s an identifiable set of policies and attitudes relentlessly pursued by the intellectual and political leadership of both parties for the past 25 years. It’s hallmarks are elite rule through the administrative state, open borders that enrich big business at the expense of small even as they impoverish the working class, and an execrable crony capitalism marketed to the public as free trade.

••• ........... ••• ............ •••


(Note: all emphasis above has been added; comments in {brackets} are mine. )

102RickHarsch
Redigeret: sep 6, 2016, 6:01 pm

When this election is over, a great sigh of relieve will come from LT member computers all over the world. No more typedrones from proximity1, his endless attacks on Clinton based on a worldview that people like me pretty much share, but also based on an apparent inability to realize that there is nothing he can do now to stop the next chapter beginning.

ETA: that sigh is of relief not relieve

103krazy4katz
sep 6, 2016, 3:19 pm

>101 proximity1: "A disaster if I'm not elected" !? No

Yes. It happens to be HRC's opponent in this election that makes this a valid argument. Not her fault. She didn't use this argument in the 2008 primaries because it wasn't true. Times change. The Republicans have a crazy person representing their party. Fact. No blame attached by me, but fact.

"It isn’t Republican voters who have changed, it is Republican leaders."

True enough. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I keep seeing: I never thought I'd miss Richard Nixon.

104theoria
sep 6, 2016, 5:49 pm

>102 RickHarsch: I doubt it will stop, but hopefully it will migrate to the Political Conservatives group.

105RickHarsch
sep 6, 2016, 6:01 pm

>104 theoria: Oh, those stuck up folk who have never sent me an invite.

106theoria
sep 6, 2016, 8:10 pm

>105 RickHarsch: Weren't you a member of the posh and uber-erudite Le salon literaire? That might have scared them off.

107RickHarsch
sep 6, 2016, 8:21 pm

i was not generally a member in good standing, but I was a posh as it gets, yes--I was uber at most times, yet rarely erudite.

108theoria
sep 6, 2016, 9:18 pm

>107 RickHarsch: It was uber my head. One of my few interventions http://www.librarything.com/topic/112987

109RickHarsch
sep 7, 2016, 2:23 am

lqarl! I remember that!

110proximity1
Redigeret: sep 7, 2016, 4:43 am

OUT-OF-TOUCH |
The Mainstream Media Has a Donald J. Trump-Sized Blind Spot |
MICHAEL TRACEY |
09.06.16 7:00 AM ET | (The Daily Beast )



A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook went on national television and declared: “There are real questions being raised about whether Donald Trump himself is just a puppet for the Kremlin in this race.”

For all the talk over the past 14 months about how Trump has obliterated the supposed “norms” that typically govern the operation of presidential campaigns, this was a norm-buster for the ages. “Puppet for the Kremlin”? That’s the stuff of a dystopian espionage thriller. If true, it’d constitute a scenario utterly without precedent in American history, potentially shaking the very foundations of the Republic. One might think, then, that Mook’s stunning attack would’ve engendered a wave of calls from sober-minded pundits for due diligence and avoidance of hyperbole.

Instead, crickets.
•••



--------------------

At campaign rallies for Hillary Clinton over the (US) 'Labor Day'-weekend, Senator Bernie Sanders (again) called on those who had been his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. His argument against Trump was very simple : the evidence shows conclusively that Donald Trump is a pathological liar and, for that reason, people must vote instead for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, really. Trump, the pathological liar must be stopped--by voting for the Clintons.

Despite Bernie Sanders’s Urging, Die-Hards Still Resist Hillary Clinton

By YAMICHE ALCINDOR | SEPT. 5, 2016 ( New York Times)

111lriley
sep 7, 2016, 9:01 am

The problem with Hillary for me is I see her as a centrist with some right positions. A neo-liberal hawk.

I expect her to be the winner in November and at least part of the test for her that I'll be watching closely is whether or not she'll flip again on TPP and TTIP etc. If she doesn't that will be a very positive + for her in my eyes. As well I don't want to see more American troops being sent to quell more conflagrations and especially in Moslem dominated countries. Then to the environment--to the incarceration rate--a living wage---student debt--health care. There are very positive things she can do but I just don't know if she's going to move to solve any of it. Infrastructure---a better choice than Merrick Garland for the Supreme court. There's a lot of stuff that will be within her reach to do something positive. Her being elected does not have to mean that all hope is gone but there are reasons for skepticism.

She needs to forget about Barack Obama and start channeling FDR.

112artturnerjr
sep 7, 2016, 9:45 am

>111 lriley:

TPP

I recently learned that the TPP would force copyright term extensions and otherwise restrict the public domain; bad news for folks like me that are frequent users and supporters of sites like Wikipedia and Project Gutenberg.

More info:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/03/tpp-problematic-partnership/

113RickHarsch
sep 7, 2016, 10:31 am

>111 lriley: If you would have stopped at TPP i wouldn't have laughed, but as you progressed...well, you got progressive--I was thinking LaFollette, but you went with FDR...

114lriley
sep 7, 2016, 10:50 am

LaFolette was a very good one but not being a Wisconsinite he doesn't always readily come to mind.

115RickHarsch
sep 7, 2016, 11:17 am

Okay, let's just agree we aren't talking about Clinton once we get beyond the likely to be passed TPP.

116davidgn
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 4:20 am

Here's a nice catch by B at MoA.

NYT Shaming Of Gary Johnson Fails With Four(!) Hilarious Mistakes

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

ETA:

Hours after MoA Salon picks up and writes, basically, the same story:
Media and pundits don’t know what Aleppo is, but they try to explain it to Gary Johnson
NewsDiff recorded all the changes in that NYT failure.

Posted by: b | Sep 8, 2016 2:53:14 PM | 20


Funny thing: a lot of my favorite journalists read MoA, too. At least they have the decency to cite it, though! (Most of the time.)

ETA: Yeah, so it's old news. I'm catching up.

117lriley
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 8:46 am

#116--we might add in the extremely unlikely scenario that Gary Johnson were elected he (and Stein) would almost undoubtedly make better foreign policy decisions than either Clinton or Trump. Neither Johnson or Stein are promoters of militaristic options.

I will note that Hillary has promised not to put more troops into Syria--though there are other military options she hasn't taken off the table. It should be kept in mind that though an imperative was laid out years ago by the Bush/Cheney administration to invade Iraq. It was a false imperative--we weren't forced to do that as a last resort--we chose to and the anti-war movement and many democrats on the left expected that once elected the incoming Obama/Biden administration would walked that unforced and colossally bad decision back out the same road we came in.

It didn't happen and the problem has spread throughout the region. Maybe it was going to happen anyway. America's continuation to flex its military might in the region has been an impediment all along and since March of 2003 to any real and peaceful solution and people and politicians can talk about foreign policy experience and credibility all they want but if they haven't figured that out yet they have no business making foreign policy decisions.

Which brings us to Trump who apparently thinks nuclear warheads should be in the discussion. Just crazy.

Anyway the media jumping all over Johnson? I don't know if there is anything as useless to any political discussion as the mainstream media. Propaganda and ratings-- hit pieces galore. That's your 24-7 news channels--that's the major newspapers.

118proximity1
Redigeret: sep 12, 2016, 12:31 am

I suspect it looked this way from the point of view of the power-wielders--

Obama, even if he'd come into office full of the intention of reversing the policy--which I doubt was the case--was probably told by at least some of his advisors--who were probably divided on the question: it's like
Colin Powell warned "43" : "If you break it, 'you own it.' Of course you could reverse the policy; but you'd be teaching world leaders not to take U.S. foreign policy seriously when a president makes a commitment. And, as you're now the president, it's your solemn declarations you'll be undermining. Consider carefully: Do you really want to do that?"

And, since Obama is pure shit whenever it comes to the responsibility to see things straight or to present clear public explanation, rather than do either of those--which should have meant extensive time and trouble--he took the (for him) path of least resistance and, caring nothing for his disappointed supporters, remained stuck in the mess "43's" stupidity gave us.

119artturnerjr
sep 11, 2016, 11:22 am

>116 davidgn:

NYT Shaming Of Gary Johnson Fails With Four(!) Hilarious Mistakes

Wow. I realize news pieces are often written on the fly, but that's just appalling. If the person who wrote the NYT piece can't recall with certainty off the top of his head that, say, Damascus is the capital of Syria, perhaps he shouldn't be writing pieces that have anything to do with foreign policy for the NYT (or anyone else, for that matter).

120jjwilson61
sep 11, 2016, 12:18 pm

>118 proximity1: Or he made the political calculation that the US will inevitably experience another terrorist attack (or at least one characterized that way by the media and/or Republicans) and if he had retreated from Iraq then he would have been seen as soft on terrorism and blamed for the attack, but if he stayed in Iraq then he would get considerably less blow-back.

121proximity1
sep 11, 2016, 12:48 pm


>120 jjwilson61:

That's a fully plausible explanation but not at all flattering for what it suggests about his view of the political sophistication of Americans in their capacity to reason through causes-and-effects.

--Though, of course, that unflattering view might be deserved but, then, that is why I chastise his resolutely refusing to take on the work of explaining such things to the public so that, rather than see himself obliged to practice such hideous Cover-Your-Ass policies, he could do something morally and intellectually surprising and respectable for a change.

But no--never that!

122lriley
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 1:24 pm

Obama as POTUS candidate critiqued the war in practically every campaign rally, debate and speech leading up to his election but we haven't heard hardly a bad word from him about it since he took office. It turned into his war and it looks to me like now it's going to be Hillary Clinton's job to come up with a solution because to me it was unacceptable in March of 2003 and if she's still POTUS come 2024 and we've still got combat troops in the region playing whack-a-mole that's going to be completely fucked up. Twenty some years of utter fucking nonsense. A lot of this is on Obama promising something and then doing the opposite.

123RickHarsch
sep 11, 2016, 1:42 pm

>122 lriley: I recall one statement early in the campaign for 2008 Obama mentioning going into Pakistan. I don't recall any opinions other than my own, but I did notice the ensuing silence on the topic...

124theoria
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 2:54 pm

"My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Obama 2 October 2002 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

This is very clear. But I suppose people will hear what they want to hear. Hence:

>122 lriley: "A lot of this is on Obama promising something and then doing the opposite."

125RickHarsch
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 5:11 pm

>124 theoria: The Obama of 2 October 2002 is a fine Obama and when he won in 2008, friends of mine wept over the telephone telling me of their relief. Within weeks he had broken international law by ordering drone strikes in Pakistan and a strike in Afghanistan that killed some 40 or so innocents. He has for years been overseeing killing programs outside any law, regardless of any recognized jurisdiction. He has killed US citizens, adult and children, in Yemen. He has overseen a cruise missile strike that killed about 40 or so villagers in the Hadramaut who were NOT al Qaeda. We may never know all the killing he has done. Those same friends feel a lot different now.

Edited to amend minor mistakes

126theoria
sep 11, 2016, 5:24 pm

>125 RickHarsch: Nothing in the October 2002 statement suggests he wouldn't use drones or cruise missiles (i.e., he's no pacifist). Again, people hear or heard what they want/wanted.

127JGL53
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 7:26 pm

When it comes to slaughtering the innocents Obama is a piker compared to LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton and the Bushes.

Suck it up and move on.

128RickHarsch
sep 11, 2016, 10:28 pm

>'Suck it up and move on.' That's some serious deterioration.

129lriley
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 10:36 pm

#124--it wasn't my grandfather in wwII--it was my dad and in the USMC which means he fought in the Pacific at Tarawa and Okinawa for two places and in mopping up on other islands which meant exterminating pretty much any Japanese soldiers they ran into. Well he hated them--hated their torture and mutilating and to his mind what they got back was quid pro quo. He told me whatever medals he got-- which included a Purple Heart he had no use for and he just dumped them. He told me other things that I'd rather not share because I think they'd shock a lot if not most people and what would be the point when illusions are better? I loved my dad very much and miss him but a good part of my childhood he was a raging fucking asshole and that war helped make him that way.

I did four years but I never walked in his shoes and I wouldn't pretend to know what it was like for him to see friends shot into pieces or mangled in front of his eyes. He got out and then went back in for Korea and was on ship and headed for a landing when the ceasefire that ended the war happened so he never fought in that one.

It is what it is but our just wars ended with wwII. Everything else has been about being a superpower--about becoming an empire.

130RickHarsch
sep 11, 2016, 10:52 pm

A bit of support from the Irish against the lame 124, 126, and 128: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v8fNrHOU8w

131JGL53
Redigeret: sep 11, 2016, 11:58 pm

> 130

It is a beautiful dream that a U.S. woman of similar high moral standards could be elected POTUS instead of an influence-peddling corporate shill like HRC, whose election will depend upon her being less hated than her opponent rather than any positive opinion of her.

BTW the new prime minister of G. Britain seems an impressive person also.

Women like the Irish MP and the PM of G. Britain in high positions of responsibility - good.

HRC as POTUS- might not be so good - - - just better than any slimy republican. Yea, us.

132lriley
sep 12, 2016, 9:28 am

I might add that there is no such thing as a good war. It breaks down into what is just (and there was justification for us in WWII) and unjust and what began in March of 2003 was and has always been an unjust war and perpetuating it out into some unknown future that could be decades away is not going to change the fact that it was bullshit to begin with and it's bullshit now and it's going to be bullshit in the future and it's not going to change from unjust to just when a different president from a different party continues on the same path.

And people are deluding themselves if they think that our military industrial complex, gas and oil industry and other multinationals and large business concerns that put tons of campaign cash into the pockets of congressmen and senators and presidents aren't influencing policy and benefiting greatly from the results. They absolutely are.

133proximity1
sep 12, 2016, 10:06 am


And I'll add, concerning this citation of then-Illinois-state-senator Barack Obama ((D.) / dist. 13) --

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."

that it would seem that what was, in 2002, alluded to as Bush's stupid or rash war plan became, once Obama took office succeeding Bush, something other than what it had been "only" six years previously when "43" was prosecuting it: no longer qualifying as stupid or rash, this was now President Obama's war.

I think, then, that the actual lesson here is rather mundane: presidents qualify as necessary any war they see fit to begin-- or continue.

Either that or apparently Mr. Obama overestimated his capacity to differentiate between things stupid or rash and those which are not.



134prosfilaes
sep 12, 2016, 5:22 pm

>129 lriley: It is what it is but our just wars ended with wwII. Everything else has been about being a superpower

If we weren't a superpower, then our impact in WWII would have been irrelevant. Would South Korea really be happier if we weren't involved? Should we have stood by and let Kuwait, one of our allies, be invaded? Isn't that just, to defend the Belgiums and Kuwaits of the world from larger aggressors?

135RickHarsch
sep 12, 2016, 5:32 pm

>134 prosfilaes: Right, superpowers are great. Read Bruce Cummins if you want to understand Korea.

Belgians? Gave us the Congo baton in the form of Lumumba's corpse.

Kuwait? The US was in there building up the oil fields right after WWII. Saddam went through backchannels and got US permission to attack. The US, not the Saudis, went over there. Voila: bin Laden.

Your superpower is just the next form of colonialism, which I am sure you try to abhor.

136prosfilaes
Redigeret: sep 12, 2016, 6:41 pm

>135 RickHarsch: Belgians? Gave us the Congo baton in the form of Lumumba's corpse.

That's very relevant to the question of whether the UK or the US should have responded to Germany's invasion of neutral Belgium in WWI or WWII. If you actually think it is, perhaps you'd like to explain.

Saddam went through backchannels and got US permission to attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait#Iraqi.E2.80.93American_relation...

On 25 July 1990, April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.

The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts".

She also let Saddam Hussein know that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.

According to Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, it can be inferred that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.)


So no, Saddam did not have US permission to attack. In fact, she said "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts", which is what naively someone might expect you to approve of.

The US, not the Saudis, went over there.

I'm sure that if we had let the Saudis try and handle it and watched the Middle East blow up into another decade-long war, you and bin Laden would be upset about it. As I've said before, I stop caring when I no longer feel that there exists an option we could have taken that you would approve of.

Your superpower is just the next form of colonialism,

Meh. American superpower is and has been extremely problematic. But your answers are knee-jerk: America and the other European powers are evil, everyone else is just victims, no need to look at any complexity.

When a superpower was pushing its way south through the Korean Peninsula, should we have intervened like we did? Does it matter that we know in retrospect that North Korea sucks and South Korea is a decent place to live?

Should we have opposed the Soviet Union? Seems like the consequences had we not could have been dire. I certainly think we should have focused more on democracy than capitalism, but one unopposed superpower is pretty bad if you don't like what they're offering.

When a heavily militarized country like 1990 Iraq invades one of its smaller neighbors, how should the world respond? If we don't, then we've got a world full of medium-size fish eating all the small fish, which doesn't seem much better than a world full of big fish eating all the smaller fish.

137RickHarsch
sep 12, 2016, 7:41 pm

>136 prosfilaes: My answers are never knee-jerk, so apparently you are prepared for them, suggesting you already know that what you write is trash.

'Meh.' Evidence of the mind of a lackey.

You provide one source from the notoriously unreliable wikipedia and draw a conclusion. By all means continue along those scholastic lines.

'When a heavily militarized country like 1990 Iraq invades one of its smaller neighbors, how should the world respond?'

Good question. How should the world respond to attacks on Chile, Guatemala, Panama, The Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?

I have no idea what your bunghole is hiding regarding thoughts about Belgium, but if the US saved Belgium the question that strikes me is whether they did so in order that Belgium could retain her colonial treasures. The answer is yes, temporarily, until the US could grab them.

If you want complexity, offer some intelligent thoughts. Tell me, for instance, in your infinitely hidden depths, why the French sought to retain Vietnam, why the US paid for roughly 80% of their efforts, and why the US violated the peace agreement between the French and Vietnam and sought to install their own leader, refused to allow promised elections, and remained their for 22 years, killing a couple million or more Vietnamese. The answer would have to be pretty fucking complicated.

As for my apparent inability to criticize anyone outside Europe of the US, provide the appropriate example, not one of your bumboys like Saddam Hussein.



138John5918
sep 13, 2016, 3:14 am

>132 lriley: it breaks down into what is just

One probably needs to unpack the word "just". In most articulations of just war theory, "just cause" is only one criterion, and indeed is usually the easiest criterion to satisfy. There are many just causes. But other criteria include proportionality (that the potential good achieved outweighs the damage done), limits to collateral damage, a reasonable chance of achieving one's "just" aims, a legitimate authority to wage war, and war being the last resort after all other means have failed.

I would agree with those who argue that it is very difficult to find a war post-WWII which satisfies all the criteria of a just war, and given the nature of modern warfare it is quite difficult even to envisage one.

139proximity1
Redigeret: sep 13, 2016, 5:11 am

"Just-war theory" -- typically given by academic scholars living relatively comfortable lives in dominant-nation cultures-- is much over-done.

It's more useful to focus on justifiable or unjustifiable claims of self-defense.

By that view, Palestinians, since 1948-- like the ANC resistance to apartheid in southern Africa at the time*-- have been engaged in justified acts of self-defense while Israel and her supporters have not.

Similarly, the Vietnamese resistance to French--and, later, to U.S.-- military occupation was justified while the French and U.S. uses of armed force against them (and in Laos and Cambodia during the U.S.-led wars) was not.

Pol Pot's genocide was not justifiable self-defense while his resistants' acts were.

Had Germans thrown up early and organized strong violent resistance to Hitler's attacks on their fellow citizens who were communists , unionists, social misfits and those designated as non-Aryan people, they'd have been justified. But few at the time correctly judged just where and how far Hitler's rule would go.

In fact, circumstances of justifiable violent resistance to unjustified (often, though not always, official & unofficial government ) claims of self-defense--were that resistance to actually occur--are much more common than is the actual resort to such justifiable resistance.

----------
* I don't have other than an amateur's passing acquaintance with the history of S. African apartheid and the resistance to it.

140John5918
sep 13, 2016, 4:28 am

>139 proximity1:

I wouldn't know about your first paragraph as I am not an academic scholar and I don't live in a dominant-nation culture. I've spent the best part of the last 30 years living and working with the grassroots in the war zone in Sudan and South Sudan. From where I sit, just war theory is not "much over-done", indeed it is not given the attention it deserves.

Justifiable self-defence falls within just war theory.

In most of your post you appear to assume that just war (or justifiable self-defence, if you prefer) against unjust aggression is only about just cause. As I said, there are many just causes, and broadly I don't disagree with the ones that you have mentioned. But there are other criteria apart from just cause which, taken together, determine whether a war, even a defensive war, can be considered just.

141proximity1
Redigeret: sep 13, 2016, 8:25 am

"From where I sit, just war theory is not -'much over-done', indeed it is not given the attention it deserves."

From where you sit that is neither surprising nor to be doubted as a simple and unexamined fact: strictly speaking, Just-war theory does not receive from blood-soaked tyrants and tribal warlords the attention you say it deserves. Nor do those survivors of the victims with whose blood the tribal warlords are soaked have much time for the luxury of Just-war theory.

In the former case, the tribal warlord accepts or, nearly always, as I suspect your experience confirms, rejects giving any attention to Just-war theory (unless he's angling for favors from a patron or a U.N. agency, I suppose) at his guise since, away from the academic papers, there's no one and nothing to make him pay attention.

As for the latter's (his victims' survivors') attention to it, it requires little in imagination to guess how much attention to this theory they can afford when, as survivors, they are so well-placed to understand that all the sincere uncynical attention to the theory would be exclusively on their part.

Hence my view that in real-world circumstances where things actually count, this theory gets just about the degree of attention which it actually deserves.

I am all for blood-soaked warlords and tribal strongmen coming to see the sense in peace and justice. Until they do, meanwhile, I'm all for their victims defending themselves by all possible means--whether those fit the criteria of "Just-war" or something else--provided they find it effective.

You are free to study just-war theory and super-majority consensus-seeking (as you call it).



142lriley
Redigeret: sep 13, 2016, 10:33 am

Prosfilaes would it seems have our military in the middle of every present and future conflict around the globe. All it would take is a treaty and/or alliance and troops ready to go.

The justification for trillions and trillions in defense contracts to our military industrial complex for defense (more like offense) programs (even after the Cold War when we could have ramped it down drastically) is as the world's de facto policeman it's up to us to quell disputes--which is a stupid bunch of fucking nonsense. And Iraq can be seen as a great example of misdirecting a response away from a country innocent of being the perpetrator of the terroristic deed it was made to pay for and we're still there and now in a much larger expanse of territory in the region and with no out strategy and some knuckleheads are just fine with that.

We don't have money for a health care system--we don't have money for a myriad of infrastructure issues whether it's the disgraceful state of roads, collapsing bridges or water systems falling apart. We can cut education and government services though. All kinds of cash however for guns and bombs and foreign interventionism. Basically are priorities are fucked.

143JGL53
sep 13, 2016, 3:12 pm

I just saw a headline wherein the president of the Philippines has demanded that the U.S. take its military bases out of his country.

Seems like a good idea to me. Might start a trend or something. But I wonder what will come of this? If it comes to war I don't know I would put my money on the U.S. It could turn into another Viet Nam. I mean, the Philippine soldier is traditionally known for his tenacity and never-say-die attitude.

144prosfilaes
sep 13, 2016, 5:44 pm

>142 lriley: All it would take is a treaty and/or alliance and troops ready to go.

So what do we do about larger nations conquering their smaller neighbors? Do we want a world where unchecked aggression goes on against any country not strong enough to defend themselves? We could certainly redirect responsibility, push it more on the UN as a whole, but I do not see a world where Saddam gets to conquer Kuwait without a counter-response is a better one.

Iraq can be seen as a great example of misdirecting a response away from a country innocent of being the perpetrator of the terroristic deed it was made to pay for

You're avoiding the question of what should have been done in 1991, and switching it to an easier subject to complain about. The Iraq War in 2003 was clearly stupid, but what doesn't change anything about ten years before.

We don't have money for a health care system... We can cut education and government services though. All kinds of cash however for guns and bombs and foreign interventionism.

Our military in 2015 cost about 600 billion dollars. Social Security was 888 billion dollars, and Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare totaled 938 billion. Medicare in itself is 538 billion dollars. Total medical costs in the US in 2014 were 3 trillion dollars; if we go to socialized medicine, cutting the military budget to zero would still only cover a fifth of that, and subtracting what currently comes out of the federal budget leaves us 1.4 trillion dollars. I agree with reducing the military budget, but it's not magic.

we don't have money for a myriad of infrastructure issues whether it's the disgraceful state of roads, collapsing bridges or water systems falling apart.

The United States is a federal system. These type of things fall under state or local systems. If a locality doesn't have money for such things, don't complain about the military; complain that your sales tax or state income tax is too low, or find some local bête noire to blame on sucking all the money away.

145RickHarsch
Redigeret: sep 13, 2016, 6:01 pm

>144 prosfilaes: 'So what do we do about larger nations conquering their smaller neighbors?'

Why are you afraid to confront the counter question in #137?:

''When a heavily militarized country like 1990 Iraq invades one of its smaller neighbors, how should the world respond?'

Good question. How should the world respond to attacks on Chile, Guatemala, Panama, The Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?'

The US is a federal system...health care is a federal issue, just as 'defense' is, just as infrastructure is. The automotive scam was federal, oligarchic. Flint, Michingan, is a federal issue, both its poverty--the reasons for it, and the water supply. In short, the welfare of a nation is a national issue.

ETA: Regarding the defense budget, that, too, requires more mature levels of thought rather than dipping into the nearest googly:

http://taskandpurpose.com/colossal-size-2015-defense-budget/

That is one example

146prosfilaes
sep 13, 2016, 6:15 pm

>137 RickHarsch: My answers are never knee-jerk,

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Trump.

You provide one source from the notoriously unreliable wikipedia

So you make a statement citing no one, and I give you a quote from a well-cited Wikipedia article that includes quotes from the ambassador herself, and I'm the one with academic problems. And you failed to even claim that anything I wrote was actually wrong, much less show that the US told Saddam that an attack was okay.

Again, according to the ambassador, she told Saddam that the US wouldn't intervene in Arab-Arab disputes. Do you have some source that disagrees with that? Is that not what you would want her to say?

Good question.

Which you then dodge, and then bring up 8 attacks on the US. I think that's a solid Gish gallop, there, with the added feature that none of your attacks are actually against the subject at hand.

147RickHarsch
sep 13, 2016, 6:31 pm

>!46 'My answers are never knee-jerk,

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Trump.'

Shit like that is why you so regularly elicit from me a sincere appeal for you to grow up.

We don't always have to cite, especially when we have studied a subject over a number of years. In may case, the Vietnam war would be an subject I don't feel any need to cite.
RE: 1991 Iraq, I would be embarrassed to cite the US ambassador. But I grant that I need to find the sources I have found over the years. And I will look for them.

I did not dodge the question. I answered it very well, in fact. The US has no credentials given its history of land-grabs and wars against feeble opponents. You continue to dodge the question and I can see why.

Here's a review:

Prosfilaes: ''When a heavily militarized country like 1990 Iraq invades one of its smaller neighbors, how should the world respond?"

Harsch "Good question. How should the world respond to attacks on Chile, Guatemala, Panama, The Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?"

I use your term the world, which is hilarious because you betray your belief that the US IS the world. What, precisely, made the US the country responsible for 'saving' Kuwait?

One of the great intelligence failures in US history occurred in China in the 1940s. This is pretty much on a par with that one. 1991 was a time to allow Middle Eastern powers to deal with their own problem. The result of the intelligence failure resonates today.

148prosfilaes
sep 13, 2016, 6:34 pm

>145 RickHarsch: Why are you afraid to confront the counter question in #137?:

Because it's stupid. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and no answer to it could be interesting.

The US is a federal system...health care is a federal issue, just as 'defense' is, just as infrastructure is. ... In short, the welfare of a nation is a national issue.

A federal system is one that delegates significant responsibilities to subnational bodies. Infrastructure of this type is such a responsibility in the US. If you want to lump everything together, then the total government spending in the US doubles.

One nice thing about a federal system is that you don't have to go to the federal government to get the street in front of your house fixed. One annoying thing is that you can no longer whine about military budgets or money that's being wasted in Alaska. There are exceptions, but for a lot of Americans, the reason their streets and infrastructure suck is because they aren't willing to pay more in local taxes to improve them.

http://taskandpurpose.com/colossal-size-2015-defense-budget/

And you of course linked to an author who couldn't be bothered to itemize anything or provide charts. Nevermind, he links to http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/C1-defense-spending-2013.jpg , which adds 250 billion to the 600 billion I quoted in terms of Department of Homeland Security, International Affairs, military retirement and largest, Veterans Affairs. I could quibble about details (like the fact that the VA does a lot of medical, and would be subsumed under any general socialized medicine plan), but an additional 50% doesn't really change the point I was making.

149RickHarsch
Redigeret: sep 13, 2016, 6:58 pm

Here is some help in understanding the oil politics involved in the Iraq/Kuwait conflict. I don't think anything on the ambassador is conclusive but the analysis pertaining to oil rings true.

http://rense.com/general69/41.htm

lots to learn here:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us...

good article:

http://www.africaspeaks.com/blog/?p=2469

150RickHarsch
sep 13, 2016, 6:43 pm

>148 prosfilaes:

>145 RickHarsch: "RickHarsch: Why are you afraid to confront the counter question in #137?:

Because it's stupid. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and no answer to it could be interesting."

Please explain why and in what way it is stupid or you will continue to come off as a petulant child.

Please explain how the US came to represent the 'World' in defending Kuwait and then go on to explain what the world was to do when, to make it easier for you I will stick to one example, the US attacked Vietnam. The US, as the aggressor, was unavailable to protect the Vietnamese people.

151lriley
sep 13, 2016, 6:53 pm

#144--your grasp of history is very selective. I'll make some selections of my own to help you with your bigger country--smaller country argument. How the United States for instance helped to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Guatemala and Chile--much smaller nations and then enabled subsequent and very brutal dictatorships in all of the above (and we could make a longer list but these will suffice) to continue to thrive for decades. It's fucking laughable that you only see the predatory nature of other larger countries but not your own.

152prosfilaes
sep 13, 2016, 6:56 pm

>147 RickHarsch: Shit like that is why you so regularly elicit from me a sincere appeal for you to grow up.

If you make pompous arrogant statements, you're going to get responses like you made pompous arrogant responses.

We don't always have to cite, especially when we have studied a subject over a number of years.

By all means continue along those scholastic lines.

I would be embarrassed to cite the US ambassador.

It was a private conversation. The best you can do is come up with the account of the other speaker and turn it into a he-said she-said. If we have but one account, the best you can do is say you consider that account untrustworthy and hold no opinion on what was actually said.

The US has no credentials

What are your credentials? Instead of proposing a world order, you attack the US.

given its history of land-grabs

I'm not aware of any territory the US has taken since the Spanish-American War.

I use your term the world, which is hilarious because you betray your belief that the US IS the world. What, precisely, made the US the country responsible for 'saving' Kuwait?

Coalition members included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. I won't bother citing that, because you'll dismiss it no matter what.

Certainly, the US could have taken a lesser role in the matter, but the world did intervene in restoring Kuwait's national sovereignty.

(Love the scare quotes. I've never used the word "save" in this conversation. But because the US was involved and you're on the other side of the argument, you have to mock the idea that Kuwait should have national sovereignty.)

153RickHarsch
sep 13, 2016, 7:07 pm

>152 prosfilaes: Your list of coalition nations proves your naivete; your refusal to answer the question suggests you are on shaky ground. But that's obvious. Kuwait probably IS more legitimately a part of Iraq than a separate nation, but I don't much care tonight. The post WWI carving of the Middle East created a lot of enduring problems, none worse than the Kurdish fuck job. Kuwait, considered by Iraqis to be Iraqi, was not only definitively not Iraqi, it was allowed to fuck with Saddam. He likely and in a sense reasonably, sought a reward for this horrific war against Iran. He felt cheated on two fronts. No one would tame Kuwait in OPEC and he gained nothing from the war against Iran from his bosses.

Repeat: 'My answers are never knee-jerk,

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Trump.'

That's pretty fucking childish.

So is refusing to answer a legitimate question by calling it stupid without explaining yourself.

So, yes, young whippersnapper. Grow up. Learn to think critically. Try hard to think objectively. Care less about being right and more about learning.

good luck

154prosfilaes
sep 13, 2016, 9:32 pm

>151 lriley: What's the point? Yes, we both want what the US did, primarily in the Cold War with the Soviet Union as an excuse, to stop. That doesn't seem to have much to do with whether the US makes treaties for the protection of various nations or engages in multinational forces to defend them.

155SimonW11
sep 14, 2016, 3:19 am

>>
but for a lot of Americans, the reason their streets and infrastructure suck is because they aren't willing to pay more in local taxes to improve them.

The reason is not that Americans object to taxes. The reason is they take no interest in state government. Two thirds of of the posts at state level are not even contested. State assemblies have no need to listen to their constituents because the their constituents can't be bothered to talk to them.

156Raspberrymocha
sep 14, 2016, 11:01 am

Pseudo-intellectual debate solves the problems of the world... Lol!

157RickHarsch
sep 14, 2016, 1:24 pm

>155 SimonW11:, 156 Simon, did you drag one of your psycho stalkers here, too?

158lriley
Redigeret: sep 14, 2016, 4:18 pm

#156--yes but we do love abusing each other.

159lriley
Redigeret: sep 15, 2016, 11:27 pm

See someone completely out of left field (or is it right field?) comes along to call people in this group cafe intellectuals and everyone shuts up...that's my Lol!

Raspberrymocha must be a subversive.

160RickHarsch
sep 16, 2016, 2:13 am

Right field. I'm sure it's one of those goons who occasionally harass SimonW.

161proximity1
Redigeret: sep 16, 2016, 2:17 am

Chances of seeing Tim Kaine or Mike Pence sworn in as president of the U.S. prior to November, 2020, one or the other of them the successor to the person on whose electoral ticket he arrived as Vice-president : 50/50 (minimum).

162lriley
sep 16, 2016, 9:37 am

#160--we do seem a little short on right fielders and it is the must unappreciated position around these parts.

#161--Kaine is kind of like a Clinton only without the baggage. Positionally he's really close. Pence is a hardcore and humorless zealot of a conservative with years and years of congressional experience before becoming Governor of Indiana. He's a lot easier to figure than Trump who continually changes positions when he's not speaking flippantly about them and leaving you wondering----????--WTF is he on about or just WTF is he on?

163SimonW11
sep 18, 2016, 2:47 am

156> Thought it was one of yours

It reminds me of the verses by Idris Davis.
that start "In the little Italian shop..." shrug it is true enough. we are no different from that talking shop where people put the world to rights tho "one would hang the whole damn lot."
In the end this is just a bull session as you americans call it'. Why that is worth a lol is beyond me.

164proximity1
Redigeret: sep 20, 2016, 11:24 am



Democrats debate the size of a Clinton victory | A confident party is divided between those who just want to make sure to win, and those who are pushing for a landslide.

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 08/22/16 05:00 AM EDT


A larger victory, one theory goes, could give Hillary Clinton a larger mandate to govern with. | AP Photo



"Democrats are starting to fight about what they want Hillary Clinton’s win to look like: Play it safe and focus on beating Donald Trump in the states that will decide the election, or try to run up the score and clobber him?

"For strategists preparing for the final phase of the campaign, this is a question of how to allocate money, staff, attention and operations. But it’s really a question of confidence and appetite for risk. Democrats looking at good polls now are torn between being nervous they’ll regret going big and nervous that they’ll regret not going big." ...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/democrats-clinton-victory-227253#ixzz4Ko9w...


165jjwilson61
sep 20, 2016, 12:10 pm

>164 proximity1: That was a month ago. I don't think they're so confident anymore.

166southernbooklady
sep 28, 2016, 11:53 am

So way back at the beginning of this conversation, I asked:

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?


As it turns out, the Arizona Republic thinks that person is Hillary Clinton.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endo...

167SimonW11
Redigeret: sep 29, 2016, 7:57 am

The National Enquirer is solid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid...

This must be a first. Seriously Stalin would be envious. Cue the conspiritards.

168theoria
sep 29, 2016, 11:06 pm

Things are looking up for Mr Trump. He was firing on two synapses during the first debate.

169RickHarsch
sep 30, 2016, 7:48 am

And they were alternating.

170proximity1
okt 27, 2016, 12:53 pm


If, a week from today, half the so-called "battleground-states" still show polls with spreads of 3.x% or less separating Clinton and Trump, then I'd say Trump's chances of winning would be even to Clinton's.

171jjwilson61
okt 27, 2016, 12:58 pm

Actually the small differences become more meaningful the closer you get to the election since there becomes less time for the person at the low end to make up the difference and opinions harden. In fact with early voting a lot of that difference will become baked in and can't change.

172prosfilaes
okt 27, 2016, 3:03 pm

>171 jjwilson61: CNN reports that 7.3 million Americans have already voted. Given that in 2012, 130 million votes were cast, that's just a start, but it's 5% of the votes that nothing the candidates do can change.

173theoria
okt 28, 2016, 1:25 am

Some Trump supporters intend to be criminal losers.

"Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, which he worried would happen through a stolen election, it could lead to “another Revolutionary War.”
“People are going to march on the capitols,” said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. “They’re going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there.”
“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?hp&ac...

Deplorable. Anti-American. Traitors.

174RickHarsch
okt 28, 2016, 4:16 am

By god, I'll be doing my best from Slovenia to see that nobody here is cheating. As for me, I won't vote, knowing it's all rigged anyway.

Sharpening my knives in Slovenia,

Rick Harsch

175lriley
okt 28, 2016, 9:09 am

#173--I would think that Mr. Halbrook in Green Bay Wisconsin is just being a tad bit hysterical in his statements. He probably is thinking he's at some kind of nexus of world history and has lost at least temporarily all objectivity. You know when you want something oh so bad and it's always just out of reach---you dream about it every night for months and months and months and months--maybe even a year or two and it's always just a fingernail away. You might even say after reading his remarks he's entirely captured by the moment which is another way of describing temporary insanity. Why make more of this stupid shit than it's worth?

Personally I think your entire post is hysterical. I'm wondering if anyone who votes for Trump automatically becomes a traitor. For one thing it seems to me that he has a very high % of the nursing home class of the United States in his corner. Old people love him at least enough that if it were up to them he'd be our next King (and instead we're going to get a Queen--how about that?)---some portion of which are WWII and Korean war vets. The kind of people who need help from Better call Saul. Are they traitors? I would think not.

176southernbooklady
Redigeret: okt 28, 2016, 9:25 am

>175 lriley: Personally I think your entire post is hysterical. I'm wondering if anyone who votes for Trump automatically becomes a traitor.

I think it is possible to condemn people who threaten armed resistance against a legitimately elected head of state as at least flirting with becoming traitors. But it is not a new sentiment. Respect for the office of the president, regardless of who holds it, is one of the casualties of the modern political era.

177LolaWalser
okt 28, 2016, 10:01 am

Theoria--surely you know by now that nothing short of the baying Rumpholes dragging POTUS Clinton out of the Oval Office and quartering her on the lawn would--well, MIGHT, just MIGHT--qualify as "treason". Because even then we must take in account the deplorables' hurt feelings & DREAMS, for whatever reason more important than those of people who think the principles and laws of your democracy mean something, or baulk at the sheer indecency of shrugging off a threat to murder.

>176 southernbooklady:

Kinda goes much further than just disrespecting the office, I'd say.

Fascinating, by the way, the notion that Clinton "does not belong" in the office. I wish they'd quizzed him more on that.

178lriley
okt 28, 2016, 10:02 am

#176---do you know how many times in my lifetime I've heard remarks about some politician or another like Mr. Halbrook spewed there? I'm thinking hundreds. The major difference here is that the NYTimes reported it. I've heard about this so called armed revolution coming for at least the last 40 years. Almost always from the right for sure but not entirely always. It's not a crime to think shit--even if the shit you're thinking is absolutely idiotic and plenty of people blurt all kinds of nonsense especially when they're excited and an opportunity to speak to a NYTimes reporter may have pushed Mr. Halbrook even farther.

As far as respect for the office of the presidency. I wish our presidents had a little bit more respect for the leaders of other nations too. Maybe then we wouldn't be in Iraq.

179krazy4katz
okt 28, 2016, 10:50 am

>175 lriley: "For one thing it seems to me that he has a very high % of the nursing home class of the United States in his corner."

Rude and unsubstantiated. Many people I know in nursing homes are quite liberal. Even if not, they certainly know the American Constitution better than people threatening armed insurrection.

180proximity1
okt 28, 2016, 12:26 pm


Hilarious!



"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

------------

181proximity1
okt 28, 2016, 12:35 pm


Hilarious!



"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

------------
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."



182theoria
okt 28, 2016, 12:41 pm

>174 RickHarsch: The fate of the world depends on you...

>177 LolaWalser: I know the deplorables think lynching is an appropriate part of electoral politics. On the other hand, since many are in their graveyard years, their long march to the White House might take several years.

183JGL53
okt 28, 2016, 12:42 pm

This is the projections of the electoral vote count by the various pollsters.

The electoral vote count is the only thing that matters - remember Bush/Gore?

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/10/27/electoral-college-projections-as-of-octo...

184margd
Redigeret: okt 31, 2016, 6:12 pm

Talk about rigging the election: a recent analysis by political scientists John Sides and Eric McGhee suggests that Democrats are poised to win a majority of votes in U.S. House contests but walk away with a minority of seats — again. (Gerrymander...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/28/how-to-gerrymander-your-w...

ETA: America is Already in Midst of Voter Suppression Crisis http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republican...

185proximity1
Redigeret: nov 3, 2016, 1:41 pm

Thursday, 4 November :

At this point, I'm expecting the vote result to be 3% or less dividing the two top vote-winners (Trump - Clinton : 3% or less difference in their national popular vote totals) .

186jjwilson61
nov 3, 2016, 3:15 pm

>185 proximity1: I think that's pretty typical of US elections.

187proximity1
Redigeret: nov 4, 2016, 12:03 pm

>186 jjwilson61: "I think that's pretty typical of US elections."

Oh! Of course! I've forgotten momentarily that this is just another typical election. LOL!

ps : Since 1824, 38 of 48 elections resulted in margins of victory greater than 3% of the popular vote--leaving a balance of ten races where the margin was 3% or less.

-------------------------------

Specifically, these races were decided by margins of 3% or less :
_____________________________________________________________________

Race# | year| Winning cand.| Party | % of vote| %marg. of V. | # votes cast| elected cand.'s votes| Runner-up | Party | national turnout by % |

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* 23 1876 Rutherford Hayes Rep. 47.92% −3.00% 4,034,142 (−)252,666 Samuel Tilden Dem. 81.80%

* 26 1888 Benjamin Harrison Rep. 47.80% −0.83% 5,443,633 (−)94,530 Grover Cleveland Dem. 79.30%

* 54 2000 George W. Bush Rep. 47.87% −0.51% 50,460,110 (−) 543,816 Al Gore Dem. 51.30%

24 1880 James Garfield Rep. 48.31% 0.09% 4,453,337 1,898 Winfield Scott Hancock Dem. 79.40%

44 1960 John Kennedy Dem. 49.72% 0.17% 34,220,984 112,827 Richard Nixon Rep. 62.77%

25 1884 Grover Cleveland Dem. 48.85% 0.57% 4,914,482 57,579 James Blaine Rep. 77.50%

46 1968 Richard Nixon Rep. 43.42% 0.70% 31,783,783 511,944 Hubert Humphrey Dem. 60.84%

15 1844 James Polk Dem. 49.54% 1.45% 1,339,570 39,413 Henry Clay Whig 78.90%

48 1976 Jimmy Carter Dem. 50.08% 2.06% 40,831,881 1,683,247 Gerald Ford Rep. 53.55%

55 2004 George W. Bush Rep. 50.73% 2.46% 62,040,610 3,012,171 John Kerry Dem. 55.27%

-----------

* : the candidate taking office did _not_ win a majority of the popular vote in these elections. (Won by electoral college counts or chosen by the House of Representatives.)

LOWEST VOTER TURN-OUT (by %):

10 1824 John Quincy Adams D.-R. 30.92% −10.44% 113,142 −38,221 Andrew Jackson D.-R. 26.90%

HIGHTEST VOTER TURN-OUT (by %) :

(23) 1876 Rutherford Hayes Rep. 47.92% −3.00% 4,034,142 −252,666 Samuel Tilden Dem. 81.80%

LOWEST MARGIN (%) OF VICTORY :

(54) 2000 George W. Bush Rep. 47.87% −0.51% 50,460,110 −543,816 Al Gore Dem. 51.30%

HIGHEST MARGIN (%) OF VICTORY :

(34) 1920 Warren Harding Rep. 60.32% 26.17% 16,144,093 7,004,432 James Cox Dem. 49.20%

188Kuiperdolin
nov 7, 2016, 6:37 am

Some good news for all the geniuses who knows how the elections will turn out (as opposed to having a vague hunch) :

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Category/6/US-Elections

PredictIt still has Clinton winning at 80 c on the dollar. That's a good opportunity to get 25 % on your life savings in less than two days, guaranteed (or 400%).

You know, if you know.
As opposed to having a vague hunch.

189proximity1
nov 8, 2016, 3:58 am




Our political system
has come to grant the majority
of the adult citizenry the right to
direct their own collective political
course as they see fit to do;
it also grants a minority of the
extremely wealthy
the means and the opportunity
to stop them
from effectively doing that.

190SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 8, 2016, 9:26 am

Trump is toast, the line at my polling place was out the door. I really thought Hillary's negatives were so strong that she'd lose any election, but it looks like I was wrong. She may be a better president than Trump, in that she seems somewhat less likely to go rouge and blow up the world. Still, whoever is elected will probably discredit their party for a generation.

191JGL53
nov 8, 2016, 12:19 pm

> 189

All that shit doesn't matter now.

trump loses because he makes Satan look like a choirboy.

> 190

Yes. We can survive HRC. Somehow, some way.

The other path leads to eternal perdition.

We shall not take it.

Despite the fact that near half of our country reside in "Darwin's waiting room".

LOL.

192lriley
nov 8, 2016, 1:17 pm

If Trump loses Florida--it's all over early. He has to win that state to have any chance.

Anyway I voted for the best guitar player and that's Stein. And for US Senator for NYS I voted for Robin Laverne Wilson. That was the Green Party ticket. I picked a couple democrats off the Working Party's ticket. As far the US congressional seat currently held by republican Tom Reed--I didn't vote for either Reed or his challenger John Plumb. Reed sucks. Plumb didn't impress me.

193RickHarsch
nov 8, 2016, 1:35 pm

You refused to plumb the depths, did you? You know if New York goes red it's you and only you, right?

194jjwilson61
Redigeret: nov 8, 2016, 1:51 pm

I live a quarter mile away from Issa's district. Instead I only got to vote against Mimi Walters but she's going to win easily.

195JGL53
nov 8, 2016, 2:08 pm

> 194

1. Walters is supporting trump for President.

2. Reportedly, one of her major issues as a member of the House has been sexual assault against women (presumably she is against it).

3. Thus, she is a hypocrite and a piece of dirt. Just like trump.

I am sure the republican party is proud of her and her loyalty.

196RickHarsch
nov 8, 2016, 2:17 pm

It's a sad thing when you can't vote for someone named Mimi

197jjwilson61
nov 8, 2016, 2:18 pm

At least this year there's someone running against her.

198SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 9, 2016, 4:58 am

Holy cow, the republicans take the White House and keep the House and Senate. I never thought Trump was going to lose badly, and figured the Senate might flip, but this is a stunning upset.

+) Reps get to choose two Supreme Court nominees.
-) Reps have no game plan for winning after a win; they are mandated to change things for the better and if they fail they will be severely punished.

199southernbooklady
nov 9, 2016, 7:24 am

>198 SomeGuyInVirginia: Yeah, I am shocked. And horrified, it has to be said. And I find this morning that I've lost a lot of my faith in the general goodness of the American electorate.

200barney67
nov 9, 2016, 7:29 am

If ever there was a wrong prediction, it's the subject of this thread. Wow. Talk about wishful thinking.

I'm sure that among Tim's friends, and among people on this site, Trump really did lose badly. Rest assured that your lack of diversity and tolerance remains intact. It's the rest of the country that's dumb and educated, right?

201barney67
nov 9, 2016, 7:30 am

End of the world! End of the world!

202John5918
nov 9, 2016, 8:23 am

>200 barney67: your lack of diversity and tolerance

A major part of the problem, I think, as it was with the Brexit vote in UK, is a divided nation where neither side really knows or understands the other, where both are probably equally guilty of "lack of diversity and tolerance" vis a vis each other, and where there is little meaningful dialogue between them.

203LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 8:45 am

Congratulations, Fugliest Americans, you now have a leader who mirrors you to perfection.

Condolences to others.

204margd
nov 9, 2016, 9:00 am

>202 John5918: Brexit vote in UK

On Facebook, this AM--

BRITAIN: Brexit was the stupidest, most self-defeating act a country could undertake.

USA: Hold my drink.

205Kuiperdolin
nov 9, 2016, 9:01 am

This is one of the happiest days in my life.

206LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 9:03 am

>205 Kuiperdolin:

LOL!

Keep this shit coming, all, it's actually giving me something to laugh about today.

207theoria
Redigeret: nov 9, 2016, 9:40 am

History was made, albeit history of the worst sort. The revenge of the cognitive underclass has carried Mr Trump to 1600 Penn Avenue. Lured by the promise of a return to the 1950s world, when a high school diploma made one King, when men were real men and women knew their place, and when rural hamlets were protected from global events, they turned out in droves to elect a TV personality with no actual plan to bring back the good old days. Will their lives be improved practically after four years of a Trump presidency: unlikely. However, they will be fulfilled by their cultural ressentiment for everything that does not stare back at them when they look into the mirror.

208proximity1
nov 9, 2016, 9:39 am


>207 theoria:

Awwwwwwwwww.

Cogs-"Overclass" defeated by Cog-underclass*

* without the MSM's full-court press
with a fraction of the money
without their underwear !

LOL!

Farties flatten "smarties" !

209LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 11:41 am

Former Ku Klux Klan leader and US alt-right hail election result

A former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan has boasted that the group’s members played a “huge role” in Donald Trump’s US presidential victory.

“This is one of the most exciting nights of my life,” David Duke tweeted as the result was confirmed. “Make no mistake about it, our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!” He added Trump’s campaign hashtag #MAGA, which stands for “Make America Great Again”.

Members of America’s alt-right reacted with glee to the news of Trump’s victory. ...

Michael Savage, a shock jock who was banned from entering the UK in 2009 as he was considered “likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence”, posted on his Facebook page the message “WE DID IT”, alongside an image reading: “Scorched earth. Restoring the country after Obama.” ...

Richard Spencer, who is president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute, tweeted “The Saxon has awoken” and “The alt-right just won!”


But none of this is anything to worry about. These are all the good solid folk that will bring back the lifetime jobs, cheap housing and moar betta kitchen appliances for the little lady in Middle America.

210SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 9, 2016, 12:09 pm

>199 southernbooklady: This election was an much a repudiation of the GOP as the DNC and I'm a little bit horrified too, maybe for different reasons. I stopped worrying about the goodness of vast swaths of voting blocks long ago, I hope you can find a way to regain your good thing.

211theoria
nov 9, 2016, 1:05 pm

>209 LolaWalser: It must feel like the day after the Reconstruction ended in the (former) confederate states. For the alt-right: they have no reason to continue to exist.

212LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 1:10 pm

>211 theoria:

But au contraire! Think of how many construction jobs openings need filling, down Mexico way.

And then there's all that pussy to grab and molest on the streets.

A real man's job is never done!

213LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 1:40 pm

AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism. Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy. On January 20, 2017, we will bid farewell to the first African-American President—a man of integrity, dignity, and generous spirit—and witness the inauguration of a con who did little to spurn endorsement by forces of xenophobia and white supremacy.

There are, inevitably, miseries to come: an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court; an emboldened right-wing Congress; a President whose disdain for women and minorities, civil liberties and scientific fact, to say nothing of simple decency, has been repeatedly demonstrated. Trump is vulgarity unbounded, a knowledge-free national leader who will not only set markets tumbling but will strike fear into the hearts of the vulnerable, the weak, and, above all, the many varieties of Other whom he has so deeply insulted. The African-American Other. The Hispanic Other. The female Other. The Jewish and Muslim Other. The most hopeful way to look at this grievous event—and it’s a stretch—is that this election and the years to follow will be a test of the strength, or the fragility, of American institutions. It will be a test of our seriousness and resolve. ...

That the electorate has, in its plurality, decided to live in Trump’s world of vanity, hate, arrogance, untruth, and recklessness, his disdain for democratic norms, is a fact that will lead, inevitably, to all manner of national decline and suffering. ...

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate but a resilient, intelligent, and competent leader, who never overcame her image among millions of voters as untrustworthy and entitled. Some of this was the result of her ingrown instinct for suspicion, developed over the years after one bogus “scandal” after another. And yet, somehow, no matter how long and committed her earnest public service, she was less trusted than Trump, a flim-flam man who cheated his customers, investors, and contractors; a hollow man whose countless statements and behavior reflect a human being of dismal qualities—greedy, mendacious, and bigoted. His level of egotism is rarely exhibited outside of a clinical environment. ...

It is all a dismal picture. Late last night, as the results were coming in from the last states, a friend called me full of sadness, full of anxiety about conflict, about war. Why not leave the country? But despair is no answer. To combat authoritarianism, to call out lies, to struggle honorably and fiercely in the name of American ideals—that is what is left to do. That is all there is to do.

214MaureenRoy
nov 9, 2016, 2:14 pm

A positive step would be to start contacting NGOs and non-profit organizations to have them start asking for a briefing for the President-elect on the medical consequences of nuclear war. Clearly he had no understanding of those consequences when he recently said, " ... we have nukes. Why don't we use them?" Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/13/former-supporters-describ...

He doesn't know what he doesn't know about nuclear weapons. Decades ago, when the group International Physicians against Nuclear War (IPPNW) was formed, they published a summary of those medical effects. Since then, you may ask, what more has been learned about such potential medical effects? The answer is ... nothing good. Here is that document: http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/1962NEJM.pdf

Is there a precedent for such a briefing? Yes, in the 1980s, President Reagan was briefed by Helen Caldicott, MD, on those medical effects. It was shortly afterwards that Reagan started asking to meet with Gorbachev, and a global easing of the nuclear build-up soon followed.

So please start asking non-profit organizations to pressure for such a Presidential briefing to happen ASAP.

215jjwilson61
nov 9, 2016, 3:35 pm

For the first time that I can remember Orange County, California voted for a Democratic president. If the OC can figure it out, what's wrong with the rest of the country.

216morningwalker
nov 9, 2016, 4:29 pm

>213 LolaWalser: you should have run for president. Well said. My heart is so heavy tonight.

217ScoLgo
nov 9, 2016, 4:48 pm

Clinton Wins Popular Vote - Loses Election

"As of 2 p.m. ET, Clinton had amassed 59,626,052 votes nationally, to Trump's 59,427,652 — a margin of 198,400 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election."

Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clint...

Quite a system. It is astonishing to me that a state can be effectively split down the middle, (Florida, Pennsylvania, etc), and all of their (very significant) electoral votes end up going to one candidate or the other, thereby completely negating the voice/choice of roughly half of that state's population. The argument can be made that this does not happen very often but... it has now happened twice in my lifetime, (Bush/Gore 2000).

Regardless of whether your candidate won or lost, this election is far from being a mandate for either side. When roughly 120 million people vote and the difference is less than 200,000 - that is indicative of a significantly divided country. I personally believe that a vast majority of the US population is moderate but the 2-party system that we have is what divides people to the extent that a Trump presidency is even within the realm of possibility.

Today, I feel as though I might be living inside a PKD novel.

218SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 9, 2016, 5:17 pm

>216 morningwalker: Yes! Lola for president. Oh my god that would be brilliant. Your campaign poster would be a picture of you jumping those buildings; "Lola. Bridging the gap," or "Get it together." And you have the perfect campaign song- Lola! Lola for president! Well that's the way that I want it to stay.

Thank you for leading me back to my happy place, morning.

219barney67
nov 9, 2016, 6:52 pm

I kept hearing about Brexit. Our election had nothing to do with that.

220morningwalker
Redigeret: nov 9, 2016, 7:47 pm

>218 SomeGuyInVirginia: unfortunately Pig Trump is still the president of the United States. And I can still say that today, but come January, who knows. I usually avoid any confrontation, but I feel so strongly that this country has made a grave mistake I am willing to make my feelings known . Yes I have been drinking, but that's when the the true feelings come out . If I were a religious person i would say God help us ,but.... I'm off to watch Netflix and escape this reality.

221SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 9, 2016, 8:04 pm

Wait! You can't leave without topping off my drink! Oh God, I need a bigger glass.

222krazy4katz
nov 9, 2016, 8:15 pm

OK, I'm outa here. Time to grasp reality and get on with my life. See you later Pro and Con. It's been an experience.

223LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 9:18 pm

You poor people ARE in despair, I'm just a fake Canadian. The best I can do is marry & import one (1) Trump-refugee. (If there's a queue... the one with the biggest library wins. :))

Not that I think moving a little north will make a huge difference for the spread of the Orange Plague...

224southernbooklady
nov 9, 2016, 9:33 pm

>223 LolaWalser: The best I can do is marry & import one (1) Trump-refugee. (If there's a queue... the one with the biggest library wins. :))

Oh pick me! Pick me! :-)

225LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 9:39 pm

>224 southernbooklady:

That's it, folks, vacancy filled.

(You do know there's a danger I may want to KEEP you? :))

226southernbooklady
nov 9, 2016, 9:43 pm

Did I mention the two dogs and seven cats?

227theoria
nov 9, 2016, 9:45 pm

>225 LolaWalser: Now you two can adopt me.

My place of employment is offering counseling for the most seriously aggrieved.

228LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 9:51 pm

>226 southernbooklady:

*clutches pearls*

*smiles bravely*

NINE dogs, cats... and of course, theoria!... aw shucks, we'll deal.

>227 theoria:

That's... actually less astounding than I'd ever imagine.

229John5918
nov 9, 2016, 10:43 pm

>219 barney67: I kept hearing about Brexit. Our election had nothing to do with that.

Well of course your election had nothing to do with Brexit. But that doesn't mean there were no similarities in the dynamics.

230LolaWalser
nov 9, 2016, 11:48 pm

From Die Zeit (not usually translated into English), just so you see the rest of the world is freaking out as hard as anyone who voted for Clinton:

The Calamity

A totalitarian phony and deceitful dilettante has managed to get elected to the US presidency. Donald Trump is an epochal disaster that won't just change his vast country and its democracy for many years to come. The entire world will feel the effects of this aberration.

Many thought it was a joke when Trump announced his candidacy last year. Go ahead, many thought, as long as it's fun for him -- and for us. That was almost one-and-a-half years ago, and today, nobody is laughing anymore. Now, a racist sexual predator, a pathological liar and an excitable egomaniac holds power in the United States -- a sickening outcome for all those who believe in democracy and human rights, or at least in the common sense of humanity at large and of Americans in particular. They only had one job, damn it! To prevent this man from becoming president.

Because he won, Trump will no doubt agree: This vote was not manipulated. There is no excuse for the majority decision. And yet the immune system failed, the one that has thus far protected healthy democracies from hollow populism. Trump's fanatic followers don't care what is true and right. ...


231John5918
nov 10, 2016, 6:08 am

Trump voters will not like what happens next (Garrison Keillor in the Washington Post)

Actually that sounds a bit like Brexit...

232SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 10, 2016, 6:58 am

Keillor touches on one aspect not a lot of people do- not that long ago 'uneducated white males' was synonymous with 'greatest generation.'

233SomeGuyInVirginia
nov 10, 2016, 7:12 am

Something else to consider- it is widely believed in DC that Hillary would eventually be impeached as president because of her maleficence. That server thing is a felony, at least, and would have landed anyone else with a security clearance in jail.

Both candidates disgusted me; I turned the radio off any time they came on.

234John5918
nov 10, 2016, 8:24 am

Strong words on the front page of today's Daily Nation in Kenya:

America does the unthinkable... They could have elected Hillary Clinton, a smart politician with 30 years experience and, granted, a few dozen closets of skeletons. Instead, they chose a foul-mouthed casino owner and showman with an alligator-sized ego and, reportedy, the sexual morals of an alley cat...


They have nearly twenty pages of coverage, including an article headlined "Absence of Africa from Trump's manifesto should worry us all" - although perhaps we should be grateful that he doesn't seem to have noticed Africa yet?

235LolaWalser
nov 10, 2016, 11:04 am

I've heard enough of the white male rage narrative

... far from being a “working-class revolt”, 48% of those who earn more than $250,000 and 49% of white college graduate voters chose Trump. But even leaving that aside, to say that no one took notice of the angry white vote in this US election is awfully reminiscent of British politicians saying “no one talks about immigration”, when it feels like – you know what? I think we got that base well and truly covered. ...

Trump’s supporters, like Brexit supporters before them, will say that these are merely the bleatings of the sore losers – the Remoaners, the Grimtons, or whatever portmanteau is conceived next. This objection always misses the obvious point that these people aren’t mourning for themselves. Whereas those who voted for Trump and Brexit did so to turn time back for their personal benefit, those who voted for remain or Hillary Clinton did so because they know time only moves forward, and this benefits society. To try to force it back hurts everyone.

To call out voters for falling for such damagingly racist and sexist messages is viewed by politicians as a vote-killer and dangerously snobby by the media, as though working-class people are precious toddlers who must be humoured and can’t possibly be held responsible for any flawed thinking. There is no doubt the white working classes in the west have suffered in recent decades, yet no other demographic that has endured similarly straitened circumstances is indulged in this way. ...

236proximity1
Redigeret: nov 10, 2016, 11:50 am

>235 LolaWalser:

••• "This objection always misses the obvious point that these people aren’t mourning for themselves."

Yes, FFS, they're absolutely doing just that. But even ideologically-blinded pseudo-liberals can see that it's not meet to admit this fact.

"Whereas those who voted for Trump and Brexit did so to turn time back for their personal benefit, those who voted for remain or Hillary Clinton did so because they know time only moves forward, and this benefits society. To try to force it back hurts everyone."

This reeks of the arrogance that spoke of the basket of deplorables.

As official (everything & everyone, press not least) Washington sees things, the Clintons, Obamas, the DNC and news media did everything right, ran flawless campaigns and the public utterly failed to do as instructed. Thus, the stupid voters screwed up a great election and now they ought to sit up and learn to pay better attention.

There is not a hope in Hell that something valid and useful will be learned from this election by the likes of Walser.

Some women, looking at the same election, differ in its explanation :

One view has it that the Russians teamed up with mean old white misogynists to cheat our glass -ceiling batterer! Damn!

and another, which I share--

The Democratic Party Deserved To Die (Huffington post)

237St._Troy
nov 10, 2016, 12:06 pm

>207 theoria: "cognitive underclass"

Thanks for this phrase; though I won't employ it as you have, I will find it useful.

>235 LolaWalser: "I've heard enough of the white male rage narrative"

You have? It seems to be part of your conversational stock in trade.

238John5918
nov 10, 2016, 1:50 pm

>235 LolaWalser: This objection always misses the obvious point that these people aren’t mourning for themselves... those who voted for remain or Hillary Clinton did so because they know time only moves forward, and this benefits society

Thanks, Lola.

239LolaWalser
nov 10, 2016, 2:13 pm

>237 St._Troy:

I don't give a shit for your opinions. You don't like my conversation; you don't listen.

>238 John5918:

You're welcome.

240jjwilson61
nov 10, 2016, 3:56 pm

236> It's a lot easier to say dismiss someone as reeking of arrogance than to actually listen to what they're saying.

241RickHarsch
Redigeret: nov 11, 2016, 5:34 am

>240 jjwilson61: Yet I admit to dismissing the writing of the author of 236 precisely that way.

242CharlesBoyd
nov 10, 2016, 7:33 pm

I read somewhere yesterday or today that a woman (presumably white) said that black people are victims of racism, but at least they have advocates, while poor white people don't have advocates. Too bad so many of them are so misguided as to think that Donald Trump gives a crap about them or will do anything to help them.

243theoria
nov 10, 2016, 8:04 pm

>237 St._Troy: Don't thank me, thank your brethren: Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve).

244St._Troy
nov 11, 2016, 12:28 pm

>243 theoria: Quite an interesting book; time to revisit it.

245LolaWalser
nov 11, 2016, 12:56 pm

OoooOOOooo! Creepy crawlies turning scary jackbooted thugs, threatening scary stuff understatedly!

246cpg
nov 11, 2016, 1:43 pm

247Carnophile
nov 11, 2016, 5:16 pm

Just weighing in to laugh at the thread title.

248Kuiperdolin
Redigeret: nov 12, 2016, 4:49 pm

Kiss it losers! More tongue!

How many heroes beating their chests in this thread would dance before the Donald for a few scraps from his table ?

249margd
nov 12, 2016, 6:09 pm

By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, (editor at Cook Political Report) estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-w...

250lriley
nov 12, 2016, 6:34 pm

#248--I don't know. I think you might.

251margd
nov 13, 2016, 2:49 pm

...David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump,Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. (Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, though he too was stymied by an electoral college loss.)

In raw numbers, that amounts to an edge of roughly 1.8 million votes as of Saturday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory_us_5827...

252StormRaven
nov 15, 2016, 7:48 pm

Something else to consider- it is widely believed in DC that Hillary would eventually be impeached as president because of her maleficence. That server thing is a felony, at least, and would have landed anyone else with a security clearance in jail.

No, it would not have. It would have drawn an administrative rebuke in most cases. I've seen far worse cases handled without criminal prosecution. For example, Jason Brezler intentionally sent e-mail containing classified information to someone who was not authorized to receive it. When the FBI searched his laptop, they found thousands of classified documents on it. Furthermore, during the investigation, Brezler lied to the FBI. Brezler is facing no jail time. The biggest penalty Brezler faces is being discharged from the Marines.

Given that Brezler intentionally distributed classified information, and Clinton did not, and that Brezler had thousands of clearly classified documents on his personal laptop, and Clinton had a hundred that were not properly flagged by the Department before they were sent to her, and Brezler lied to the FBI and the FBI has said directly that Clinton did not, why do you think she would face jail time when Brezler is not?

253proximity1
nov 16, 2016, 2:49 am



>252 StormRaven:

Explaining the difference so that a child could understand is easy. Explaining it to a child whose mind is closed is impossible and a waste of time.

254margd
nov 23, 2016, 6:23 am

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump...The group...believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked..."

"The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee..."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-c...

(Going forward, might be useful to regard Trump accusations ("rigged", "crooked") as boomerangs--pot calling kettle black, as it were.)

255davidgn
nov 23, 2016, 6:30 am

>254 margd: Unless this goes hot, I'm still honoring my embargo.

256margd
nov 23, 2016, 7:13 am

I hope there's a recount. I don't want my vote stolen and an election rigged by whomever.

Never mind Clinton, Trump should want a recount himself. Not exactly a mandate if one loses popular vote by historical records, and even one's electoral vote is suspect--maybe due to Russian interference no less.

Can you imagine four year of this drip-drip-drip of scandal and near-scandal, e.g., ~ Bannon paid by Trump foundation while running Breitbart News. Aii-yee!

257southernbooklady
nov 23, 2016, 8:16 am

>256 margd: Not exactly a mandate if one loses popular vote by historical records, and even one's electoral vote is suspect--maybe due to Russian interference no less.

Trump's not interested in having "a mandate" -- that's not how he thinks.

258prosfilaes
nov 23, 2016, 5:49 pm

>257 southernbooklady: He has a mandate; Donald Trump voted for him, and that proves that everyone who matters voted for him.

259southernbooklady
nov 23, 2016, 6:21 pm

>258 prosfilaes: We're all living in a Doonesbury comic strip.

261margd
feb 6, 2017, 7:51 am

@Trump-Regrets

Halifax student compiles Trump voter regrets
http://www.kingstonregion.com/news-story/7103875-halifax-student-compiles-trump-...

... While Trump detractors have relished the tweets as affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs, Baguma said contrite Trump voters have also found solace in knowing they're not alone.

(Erica Baguma, a 23-year-old social anthropology student at University of King's College in Halifax, NS), who was born in Uganda, said that as a woman of colour, she felt personally targeted by Trump's characterization of black Americans as "nothing more than perpetrators and victims of inner-city violence."

She said the account has given her a new perspective on Trump supporters as a diverse coalition of voters who may have overlooked his more inflammatory statements because they believed he was looking out for the country's best interest.

"I had this idea that they were ... maybe not bigots, but sort of not totally informed," said Baguma. "A lot of them are just extremely naive and thought he's a good person, everything he's been saying is just rhetoric. There's no real one description."

262Kuiperdolin
feb 6, 2017, 8:40 am

I don't regret posting in this thread, everytime its title appears on top of my home page it fills me with joy.

263margd
Redigeret: feb 7, 2017, 8:51 am

>262 Kuiperdolin: fills me with joy

Here you go, then:

The big lesson of Trump's first 2 weeks: resistance works
Protests, phone calls, and mobilization are making a difference.
Updated by Matthew Yglesias

"...Trump is getting things done, but all presidents do that. Look at what he’s not getting done. A Republican-controlled Congress bowed to public outrage over an attempt to water down an ethics office. Trump dramatically downscaled his own executive order barring entry to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. He’s having unprecedented difficulty getting his Cabinet nominees confirmed, even though the Senate’s rules have changed to make confirmations easier than ever. Conservatives in Congress have put their big plans to privatize Medicare and public lands on hold. And the drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act is running into very big trouble.

None of this is based on the discipline and self-restraint on the part of the White House. It’s thanks to bold acts of resistance. The result is lives have been saved, many more lives have been demonstrably improved, and the proven template for future success has been created..."

"...More diffusely, resistance is already costing Trump politically. A planned trip to Harley-Davidson in Wisconsin was canceled because the company didn’t want to deal with the protests. Disney’s CEO canceled a planned trip to the White House. Maintaining a constant atmosphere of contentiousness has cost Trump the usual honeymoon period and saddled him with approval ratings that are already underwater. .."

"...Two crucial issues hang in the balance...Affordable Care Act...Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)"

"...If the ACA and the DREAMer program are preserved, then substantial chunks of the Obama legacy will remain in place, and the momentum of Trumpism will be blunted. If they are rescinded, the opposite is the case, and the door is open to things like Paul Ryan’s broader “war on the poor” or Bannon’s broad-brush attack on all forms of immigration."

"...A Washington Post poll released Wednesday morning says that 25 percent of Americans say they plan on being more politically active this year. That includes 35 percent of self-identified Democrats, 40 percent of Democratic women, and 43 percent of Democrats under the age of 50.

Democrats running in down-ballot races, long suffering from neglect, are suddenly enjoying unprecedented outbursts of grassroots fundraising as angry liberals seek a way to make a difference.

Trump fans, meanwhile, are going to face the natural demobilization and disappointment that comes with actual governance. He will be less of an orthodox free marketer than some of the people who voted for him are hoping, and he will be less of a heterodox populist than some of the other people who voted for him are hoping..."

"...There’s a lot of time between today and the New Jersey and Virginia elections in November that will be Trumpism’s first test at the polls. But so far, the anti-Trump movement is succeeding — perhaps much better than its foot soldiers realize."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/6/14473482/resistance-works-anti-t...

**********************************************************

ETA: Tech Opposition to Trump Propelled by Employees, Not Executives
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/business/trump-travel-ban-apple-google-facebo...

264margd
mar 12, 2017, 9:35 am

The Bernie Sanders Campaign Faced A Fake News Tsunami. Where Did It Come From?
The trolls set out to distract and divide the invigorated left.

...The stories they posted weren’t the normal complaints he was used to seeing as the Vermont senator and the former secretary of state fought out the Democratic presidential primary. These stories alleged that Clinton had murdered her political opponents and used body doubles...

(June-October 2017)...Mattes, 66, had been a television reporter and Senate investigator in previous lives...said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e...

265StormRaven
Redigeret: sep 1, 2021, 10:37 am

Denne meddelelse har fået flere brugere til at hejse et advarselsflag, så den vises ikke længere (vis)
Revisiting this thread as the Supreme Court, containing three reactionary justices appointed by Trump, eviscerates the rule of law via the shadow docket despite assurances concerning "settled law" to say "fuck you" to anyone who did not vote for Clinton in 2016.

And I will point out to proximity1, that every prediction I made about Clinton and Trump came true, and literally nothing you predicted did. So much for you thinking a "child" has a closed mind.

The upshot of all this is that looking back on this thread confirms that you were, and are, an uninformed dumbass proximity1.