[worry]

It's one of those phrases (like "being thrown under the bus") that has just caught on in media parlance in recent years, and gets parroted whether it's astute or not. It has some value I suppose when nutshelling someone's relatability (though I think it's outlived its welcome), but it shouldn't be taken literally as a major trait people are actually concerned with. I think "anti-intellectual", "single-issue voter", and "uninformed voter" are all much more useful, explicit terms for real phenomena, and the beer thing kinda sugarcoats them.

This post has been edited by Dumbledude: 28 January 2016 - 03:03 AM

[Terez]

Gorefest, on 26 January 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Why does the conservative party even consider Trump as a candidate? Surely it would be an utter disaster for the party as a whole if Trump becomes their candidate? Why don't they simply go: "Look mate, by all means, run as an independent, but you're not going to speak for our party with your loony toon non-issues"?

The party is one thing, the voters another. The party doesn't have much choice in the matter because these things are decided by voters. It is traditional and expected to use polls in advance of the actual voting to determine which candidates should be on the debate stages, and it is also traditional for the party to allow media outlets acting as hosts to have some freedom in setting rules. This got particularly significant this year when the GOP field started out with 17 viable candidates.

Trump has been strong in the polls since well before the first debate, so the party had no real choice in the matter. Every attempt they have made to use their power to marginalize Trump has backfired in the polls. They can't go against their own voters or the party will fall apart. In fact it's kind of amazing that they have been pushing so hard against Trump because they're already approaching that breaking point. But then again, it's not so amazing because Trump is so terrible.

Right now, less than half of GOP voters pick Trump as their first choice, but he's getting over 40% in some polls, and the second-choice contingent puts him over 50% inside the Republican party.

The voters love him because they're primarily motivated by race politics, though many of them honestly don't see it that way. That's where the fiscal conservatism comes from - all those lazy minorities raking in welfare benefits on the taxpayer dime, that is, the dime of hard-working white folk. That's where the fear of brown immigrants comes from, and the fear of Muslims. Religion is a strong motivator for many conservatives in the US, but when it comes to Trump, religion is not what he's about. He's about the expression of those anti-PC sentiments that conservatives feel they are not free to express.

Gorefest, on 26 January 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

What determines whether someone runs on behalf of a party or as an independent anyway? Is it just a requirement of membership? Are there no political views or guidelines that a party candidate needs to adhere to?

If you register as a member of a party, then you're a member of that party, and you can change your registration at any time. If you file as a candidate for a party, then you're a candidate for that party, simple as that. The voters are supposed to decide whether you can actually represent the party.

The conventional wisdom holds that, in order to have a chance of becoming president, one has to run as a Republican or a Democrat. That's why Ron Paul ran as a Republican, and why Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat (though he won his senate seat as an Independent), and why Trump is running as a Republican.

Gorefest, on 26 January 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

I refuse to believe that anyone with half a brain would dare to let Trump within ten miles of a nuclear launch button. The man is an archetypal high school bully, a hater of everything that is not white male, an alleged rapist, an antifeminist, anti-muslim, anti-everything phoney who claims to stand for the people he actually despises the most: those who were left behind by the American Dream. I'm sure there is a vocal section of society that rallies behind such bullies, but it usually isn't the section that actually cares to turn up to vote.

Don't be so sure. Hateful, ignorant white folk tend to take voting seriously; there are a ton of them who don't vote, but there are enough who do that you can't dismiss them so easily.

Raging Cajun Gator King, on 27 January 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

Looks like Trump maybe not going to next Fox debate.

I'm glad Fox stood by Megyn Kelly in this. I'm not exactly a fan of hers, but she has been brave on Fox in the past whenever her opinions didn't conform to the party line. This is one of those cases because she dared to question Trump's treatment of women. Typical Fox viewers were quick to label her a feminazi for it, and it's really fascinating to watch the hold that Fox has over the GOP start to crumble. The Fox era as we know it is over, and it will be interesting to see where the rightwing media bubble goes from here. Conservatives have been supplementing Fox with talk radio and Breitbart etc. for years, so we have some idea of where it will go, but Fox is no longer what it was to GOP voters.

amphibian, on 27 January 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

The USA has had a problem with white terrorists since the country began and this is the latest development of armed yabbos trying to enact self-governance. I'd say this type of thing happens on a scale that captures national attention at least once every ten years and has done so since Shay's Rebellion.

Some light reading on the subject for our foreign friends: Posse comitatus.

[Andorion]

Oookay that Posse Comitatus was an eye opener.... am I right in thinking these guys merit a lot of FBI attention?

[Terez]

Andorion, on 28 January 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

Oookay that Posse Comitatus was an eye opener.... am I right in thinking these guys merit a lot of FBI attention?

They probably do get a lot of FBI attention, but as the article says, the movement is loosely organized, and there are a lot of militia types who follow the general philosophy but don't actually claim membership.

Maddow made the connection in a segment she did back when Cliven Bundy was in the news. This is one of those epic Maddow A-block longsegments; definitely worth a watch.

[worry]

They do and I imagine they get it.

On another note, while it's been a running gag that Jeb (and others, but mostly Jeb) doesn't actually want to be president, and it's a decent critique of his strategies, occasionally it seems to be the actual truth. I seriously don't know what he's thinking. Terri Schiavo appears in Jeb Bush ad:<h1></h1> http://www.tampabay....gusting/2262826

[Gnaw]

I have this maddening (to me) ability to look at things from specific points of view and change back and forth without exploding my head. Unfortunately, I lack the ability to fully explain my reconciliation of views. Which means all my liberal friends think I'm a fascist and my conservative family members think I'm a communist.

Maddow is absolutely correct when she states that the posse comitatus movement is racist in origin and stems from the American Civil War.

But she's so wrong about the origin of the "sheriff is the authority" thing. That goes back to at least Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in the English political theory arena and even earlier in the popular culture, i.e. Robin Hood.

Hobbes' Leviathan was written during the English Civil War and was the first in modern Western times to propose a civil contract theory of politics. He speaks of the free will given by the highwayman when they speak "your money or your life"; it's not coercion because the highwayman is giving a choice. But later he presents the problem of what do you do when "the magistrate is the highwayman?" It's buried in his support of the divine right of kings (written while in exile in France where he was sorta safe from the headsman but wanting to go home), but the next level down that he recognized as part of his contract was the magistrate, i.e. sheriff.

[worry]

In all seriousness, I think you should spend more time trolling them all.

[Gnaw]

I'm sorry. Noted and I'll try to resist the urge from now on.

[Terez]

I just went back to the beginning of this thread and read all the way through the end of the 2012 election. I kind of skimmed through the primary season. Anyway, that was fun. I didn't say anything that turned out to be stupid in hindsight. There were some LOL comments @ Trump; we didn't take him seriously enough. And it was wisely predicted by many that Republicans would decide they lost in 2012 because they didn't nominate a real conservative.

[Gorefest]

Terez, on 28 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

There were some LOL comments @ Trump; we didn't take him seriously enough.

Pfffff, us totally uninformed outsiders already saw that one coming all the way back in June last year

[Terez]

Gorefest, on 28 January 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Terez, on 28 January 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

There were some LOL comments @ Trump; we didn't take him seriously enough.

Pfffff, us totally uninformed outsiders already saw that one coming all the way back in June last year

Well, by then he was polling well. This was back in 2012 when no one really believed he had a chance, and that if he did run it wouldn't be seriously.

[Gorefest]

Terez, on 28 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Well, by then he was polling well. This was back in 2012 when no one really believed he had a chance, and that if he did run it wouldn't be seriously.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood. I didn't even realise his name had been banded about as early as 2012 already as a possible candidate for the future. There goes my smarminess out of the window.

[Terez]

Gorefest, on 28 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Terez, on 28 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Well, by then he was polling well. This was back in 2012 when no one really believed he had a chance, and that if he did run it wouldn't be seriously.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood. I didn't even realise his name had been banded about as early as 2012 already as a possible candidate for the future. There goes my smarminess out of the window.

Try as far back as 1988:

http://onpolitics.us...ident-campaign/

That's a short and sweet summary. For something more in-depth, see McKay Coppins's 2014 "hit piece":

http://www.buzzfeed....th-donald-trump

Trolling at its finest. Many blame Coppins for the fact that Trump finally decided to run this year.

PS: I should really emphasize that I cannot recommend Coppins's article highly enough. I read it when it came out, when (still) no one believed he would really run, and I thought it was amazing then. It's even more amazing now.

This post has been edited by Terez: 28 January 2016 - 04:54 PM

[Primateus]

Gnaw, on 28 January 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

Andorion, on 28 January 2016 - 02:13 AM, said:

amphibian, on 27 January 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

Andorion, on 27 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

Ruby Ridge and Waco were different in that there were family units on their own land and some level of brainwashing/cult implementation going on with women and children involved.

This Y'allqaeda thing is composed of similar kinds of white men, but there's no family units and they aren't on their own land.

The USA has had a problem with white terrorists since the country began and this is the latest development of armed yabbos trying to enact self-governance. I'd say this type of thing happens on a scale that captures national attention at least once every ten years and has done so since Shay's Rebellion.

What I find interesting is the culture of wilful ignorance some individuals and groups wilfully cultivate. They shut themselves off from information and seem to distrust intelligence. I remember when Obama was getting elected somebody wrote that he was too smart and not somebody you could have a beer with in a bar. I wondered how that was considered a qualification for office.

Is this a widespread trend or have I been reading about fringe cases?

Republican party.


All conservative movements are afraid of intelligentsia. It's part and parcel of "standing in front of history and yelling stop".

(My bold)

I just read this today from Salon.com

Afraid of the intelligentsia indeed!

[Gnaw]

This is too good not to post regardless of my 'troll' status:

I was working on a friend's computer because her bank updated their website and she needed her browser updated as well. Which meant that all her passwords needed updated.

So I saw a pic on her facebook news feed that I thought was hilarious.

"Donald Trump says he is going to stand up to Russia, North Korea, Syria, ISIS, etcetera.

But he's afraid of Megyn Kelly."

[QuickTidal]

I was curious since I'm a Canadian...I took the US Election quiz to see where I would come down on who to vote for If I were an American.

http://www.isidewith.com/

Came out at 97% Hillary and 91% Bernie...all the rest were down near the 60% marker.

That's PRETTY much how I assumed the quiz would come out.

[Andorion]

I got 92% Sanders, 905 Hillary, 68% Martin O Malley.

[Gorefest]

95% Hillary and 94% Sanders. I gather that if you choose what I would consider moderate, slightly left-wing policies, it will always end up with those two. Trump 31%, Cruz 27%, Fiorina 24% and Santorum 21% is more interesting, I didn't realise I could disagree with someone more vehemently than with Trump. Well done Santorum. Hadn't even heard of Fiorina, to be honest. I'll go and read their policies with great interest.

[edit] Oh, right, Santorum is one of those "pro-life" people who support the death penalty. It boggles the mind.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 29 January 2016 - 04:17 PM

[Vengeance]

I got 98% Bernie and 91% Hillary and 81% Martin O'mally

[Primateus]

97% Bernie, 90% Hillary, 83% O'Malley. Republicans are all 61% and below.