Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Ryan could have beat PAH. Oh well.

[hack]

It looked like an actual contest for a bit, but it sure seems like it's pretty bad for Trump now.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Ryan could have beat PAH. Oh well.

Ryan. Rubio. Kasich. Random member of the Bush family. Yep.

Republicans chose wise businessman Trump instead. Decades of encouraging the base to hate Washington, "elites", compromise, and general literacy have caught up to them.

[froot loops]

No way, no how could Ryan win and Clinton. HE was a dud in 2012. Dud.

[Dr. Strangelove]

No way, no how could Ryan win and Clinton. HE was a dud in 2012. Dud.

She's a lousy candidate, froot. Tons of baggage. Nowhere near the charisma of Obama or Bill. The Dems are fortunate the "true conservatives" seized control of the party this year.

[hack]

As establishment candidates go, she's fine. It's just that we now have so many reminders of why we're sick of that.

[froot loops]

She's a lousy candidate, froot. Tons of baggage. Nowhere near the charisma of Obama or Bill. The Dems are fortunate the "true conservatives" seized control of the party this year.

Paul Ryan is no great shakes, he is better at letting true conservatives swoon over him. He would be running on the same supply side agenda that Romney and McCain ran on. That platform has a low ceiling that is getting lower every four years.

Clinton is not a great candidate but she is better than every one of those candidates that got de-pantsed by Trump.

[CGVT]

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think
Republican nominee engaged in so-called stochastic terrorism with his remarks about "Second Amendment people" and Clinton
00:42
00:43
Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think
By David S. Cohen
5 hours ago
One day after his widely discussed "reboot" in which he did nothing more than read basic Republican economic talking points from a teleprompter, Donald Trump uttered perhaps his most outrageous – and dangerous – ad-lib yet. And that's saying something for a campaign in which he's criticized John McCain for being a prisoner of war, characterized Mexicans as rapists, called for banning Muslims from coming into the country, picked a fight with a Gold Star family and urged Russia to hack his political opponent.
RELATED

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," says Republican nominee. "Although the second amendment people, maybe there is"
Speaking to a crowd in Wilmington, North Carolina, Tuesday, Trump expressed concern about Hillary Clinton possibly picking Supreme Court justices and other judges. He then said, "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
Let that soak in for a second. One of the two major-party nominees for president just called for "Second Amendment people" to "do" something about his political opponent's judges. According to the Trump campaign's rapid response team, he was talking about those "Second Amendment people" coming together politically – "unification," as they called it. The Clinton campaign, and pretty much the entire Internet, saw it differently: as a clear suggestion of violence against a political opponent.
It's hard not to side with the Clinton campaign here. What Trump said was that a particular group – those who are defined by rallying around guns – should do something about Clinton and her judicial nominees. What can people who rally around guns do that's different than others? Use those guns.
But it's really irrelevant what Trump actually meant, because enough people will hear Trump's comments and think he's calling for people to take up arms against Clinton, her judges or both. Though most of the people hearing that call may claim he was joking, given what we know about people taking up arms in this country, there will undoubtedly be some people who think he was serious and consider the possibility.
In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."
Let's break that down in the context of what Trump said. Predicting any one particular individual following his call to use violence against Clinton or her judges is statistically impossible. But we can predict that there could be a presently unknown lone wolf who hears his call and takes action in the future.
Stated differently: Trump puts out the dog whistle knowing that some dog will hear it, even though he doesn't know which dog.
Those of us who work against anti-abortion violence unfortunately know all about this. Valerie Tarico wrote about this form of terrorism following the Planned Parenthood murders in Colorado Springs last November. The pattern she noted there is 100 percent applicable to Donald Trump and his supporters right now – except that we haven't yet had the major act of violence at the end of the string. As Tarico wrote:
"1. A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.
2. With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.
3. Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past 'purges' against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.
4. When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the 'tragedy.'"
This explains Donald Trump's campaign against Hillary Clinton to a letter. He has 1) demonized her whenever he can by calling her "Crooked Hillary" and constantly degrading her; 2) organized a convention around which the central theme, repeated over and over, was that Clinton is a criminal who needs to be locked up, clearly using fear and moral disgust as motivators; and 3) is now using violent metaphors (or "jokes," if that's what you think his statements were) against her, just short of an explicit call to arms.
Now we just have to hope that #4 doesn't come about – that violence does not erupt. Though, if it does, we know exactly what Trump and his supporters will say: that they never could have foreseen this tragedy.
In the world I'm most familiar with, the world of anti-abortion violence, we see this again and again from leaders of the anti-abortion movement. Tarico's post linked above is one example. This cartoon, drawn following Dr. George Tiller's assassination in 2009 (and dug up Tuesday by Michelle Kinsey Bruns), is another perfect illustration.
Following Trump's comments, we all have to hope (and, if it's your cup of tea, pray) that it doesn't come to this – that the lone wolves out there don't read this as urging someone to take the next step in the cycle.
Because what Trump has done is clear: He has incited violence against Hillary Clinton and/or her judges, even if he doesn't know exactly who will carry that violence out.

[iam416]

Ryan. Rubio. Kasich. Random member of the Bush family. Yep.

Yeah, I agree, DSL. Well, except for the Bush family. Heh. I think PAH would win that one.

I think you'd have to be absolutely partisan not to at least acknowledge that Ryan/Rubio/Kasich/Others would have a pretty good chance of winning.

The only interesting thing for this election is how much further R Senators run ahead of Trump and whether the Rs can hold on to the Senate. I think they'll lose the Senate and almost lose the House. That will be followed by proclamations of R Doom and that will be followed by a R Dominance in the 2018 mid-terms.

[hack]

Paul Ryan is no great shakes, he is better at letting true conservatives swoon over him. He would be running on the same supply side agenda that Romney and McCain ran on. That platform has a low ceiling that is getting lower every four years.


I think that nails it. You can trace it back to the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union falling and Fukuyama/End of History -- given the conclusion at the time that markets, capitalism and democracy were the final form, it's no wonder functional debate about economic policy ended. But now it's back. With every cycle there will be far fewer voters whose thoughts about economic policy are dominated by an orthodoxy that went unchallenged for 20 years. These issues are on the table and people are thinking about them. Or, at least, responding to the slogans of those that are actually thinking about them.

[froot loops]

Kasich would have a chance but not Ryan.

Not Rubio. Rubio was a terrible candidate just by nuts and bolts campaigning. He had a ton of money and couldn't drive any interest. He was an incredibly lazy campaigner. He didn't do much door to door stuff in Iowa or New Hampshire. His biggest strength was his hispanic heritage and immigration reform and that was turned into a weakness by this campaign.

It is not about being partisan, the 2012 Republican autopsy stated they need to expand their demographic base.

[entropy]

Jeb should have done better..

[froot loops]

Jeb should have done better..

He was out of the game too long, when he was in the game he never really had the desire for the presidency.

[Hannibal]

All of those other guys would have gotten turned into mincemeat once the spotlight got turned on them. It's easy to look good when you are not being vetted at all. This was the case with Cruz for a while. Cruz would have been slaughtered and none of those other guys would have attracted any of the crossover vote. Republican support for Kasich would have been worse than the support for McCain and as for Rubio, he wasn't ready for prime time and there is no way to sell free market capitalism when you have half of the population receiving some form of government assistance. I think that a couple of the Republican governors like Walker or Jindal would have a chance, but they have recently lost popularity in their home states, so I don't know how that would have worked out. I was really surprised that neither of those guys caught on though. They were both solid in their agendas and they had displayed some balls too. In the end, it wouldn't have mattered if somebody like Kasich won, because he is essentially just an anti-abortion Democrat, which is the last thing that the Republican party needs. Trump was the only guy who offered a sustainable, winning formula with an actual agenda that the base could get behind, as well as credible promises that he would actually follow through on that agenda once he got elected. He ditched the "family values, God and Jesus" rhetoric and focused almost entirely on a nationalist agenda based on issues that people really care about. That's a winning formula in 2016. You can even cynically capture the minority vote with an agenda like this by pointing out how illegal immigrants are competing for Gimmiedats. Unfortuntely the only candidate worth getting excited about has a severe personality disorder that prevents him from thinking before he speaks or listening to advice, so he is going to lose soundly unless some sort of miracle happens.

The Republican base has watched their elected officials completely abandon the agenda and cower in fear for over a decade now. If that's what my side is like then who gives a shit if the other side gets elected? I'm not even that bothered by Hillary being President at this point. Her agenda won't be that much different from that of the Cuckservatives and at least it may galvanize some opposition. Also, she's not a true believer when it comes to Socialism/redistribution of wealth and I view her corruption as a positive (since it means that people with skin in the game will have at least some say in how policy is written).

[hack]

there is no way to sell free market capitalism when you have half of the population receiving some form of government assistance

I think at some point people need to think about the term ``free-market capitalism'', and whether there's actual reason to fuse those two concepts together. In truth I think capitalism would prefer to live without the free markets and has gotten used to doing so, as evidenced by how many commercial successes are in truth regulatory/legal victories in Washington. I think people of all walks save for the very wealthy would benefit from a little bit more free market in their lives, and a little less capitalism.