News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Vanadium 50]

This behaviour seems to me as it belongs in a state on the verge of becoming totalitarian

Sadly, it is not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

 

[BillTre]

I live in Oregon and I vote from my couch!

This is because our state is all mail-in ballots (just like an absentee ballot).
This is the best voting method I have ever used. You can take a lot of time and read about each candidate or issue as you go along and mark the ballot without any pressure to be fast. No lines either.

 

[russ_watters]

Trump's views on minorities and women might make me scared of the dark, but this scares me in broad daylight: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ection-claims-raise-historical-alarms-n667831

Democracy builds upon trust and accepting that a majority of voters might not agree with your own opinion*...

Why? That reporter/those historians seem to have a selective memories. I remember Democrats screaming to high heaven - also with no evidence - that Diebold was stealing elections for Bush (we had a number of discussions of it here). And Gore went so far as to challenge the election in court to ensure that all of the votes in categories that might help him get counted by methods that might help him. The article lists Gore's challenges, but with absurdly charitable and oft repeated in liberal circles verbiage such as "Gore...won the popular vote" (that isn't a thing) and "Supreme Court decided the election" (no it didn't - the votors and electoral college did).

If the fear is strictly over Trump's rhetoric, so what? Why do we care about Trump's rhetoric? There is no power behind it. Barring an unlikely extremely close election and Bush/Gore/Florida situation, there really isn't anything Trump can do to make real trouble if he loses. The only thing he can do - sue - would go nowhere. The Supreme Court would fast-track his lawsuit to the trash can.

Can he stir-up trouble with his supporters? Sure. And that would get them exactly as far as the conspiracy theories went about Diebold stealing elections for Bush.

*I know what you mean, but in this election it is likely based on current polling that both Hillary's and Trump's votors will have to accept that a majority of votors don't agree with their opinion.

[edit] Here's a more balanced article on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-election/index.html

Despite quoting Trump directly though, it does ignore his primary complaint: that the media is acting against him and even conspiring with the Clinton camp. These claims are, of course, universally understood to be true, right...?

 

[mheslep]

where did I or anything in the linked article say anything about "taking action" against Zhirinovsky?

Your first post on the subject stated an ambiguous "this" should be "unacceptable" to "Americans", with a link to a statement this Russian made last week. Okay, assume for a moment the guy speaks for Putin. One more time, what exactly is 'this', and what are you suggesting Americans do about it?

 

[Orodruin]

Why? That reporter/those historians seem to have a selective memories. I remember Democrats screaming to high heaven - also with no evidence - that Diebold was stealing elections for Bush (we had a number of discussions of it here). And Gore went so far as to challenge the election in court to ensure that all of the votes in categories that might help him get counted by methods that might help him. The article lists Gore's challenges, but with absurdly charitable and oft repeated in liberal circles verbiage such as "Gore...won the popular vote" (that isn't a thing) and "Supreme Court decided the election" (no it didn't - the votors and electoral college did).

To me there is a clear difference between using legal methods in order to try to benefit yourself and issuing a call to arms because you do not agree with an election result. In fact I would welcome a Trump legal process because it would put additional weight behind a statement of the election having been conducted according to the electoral laws.

If the fear is strictly over Trump's rhetoric, so what? Why do we care about Trump's rhetoric? There is no power behind it. Barring an unlikely extremely close election and Bush/Gore/Florida situation, there really isn't anything Trump can do to make real trouble if he loses. The only thing he can do - sue - would go nowhere. The Supreme Court would fast-track his lawsuit to the trash can.

I am not worried about Trump taking legal action. I am worried about Trump calling upon more militant factions to take up arms, such as his thinly veiled hints at "second amendment people" to "do something about it". As a non-American, this strikes me only as an additional argument for abolishing the second amendment.

 

[russ_watters]

To me there is a clear difference between using legal methods in order to try to benefit yourself and issuing a call to arms because you do not agree with an election result.

Oh, yeah, I'd agree with that. I'm not seeing anything about a "call to arms" in that article though. Can you provide a quote of Trump's call to arms?

I am not worried about Trump taking legal action. I am worried about Trump calling upon more militant factions to take up arms, such as his thinly veiled hints at "second amendment people" to "do something about it".

Just in case I'm misunderstandung: are you claiming Trump has made a "call to arms" or just worried that he might? What you posted previously about fearing what was in the article doesn't seem to me to fit together with what you are saying here, unless there is some reading between the lines needed to find the thing to fear.

The only "militant" things I can recall from him are the 2nd amendment comments, which didn't have anything to do with recourse against a rigged election.

 

[BillTre]

Another, more interesting election issue:

In Florida, the mosquito (Aedes aegypti), which is the main vector (biological instrument of spread and infection) for the Zika and Dengue diseases, is going to the ballot!
The residents on a small island, will be voting on whether to have a test release of recombinant Aedes aegypti as a control method on part of their island.
The mosquitoes already exist in the island and Zika is a looming threat.
Many different potential control methods for this species exist, each with different costs, benefits, and possible problems.
Different people (of course) have a variety of opinions on these different control methods.
Whether to have the vote itself has also been an issue.
This article gives an overview of this complex and yet to be resolved situation.

As an aside, I like to point out that the Aedes aegypti is an invasive species (from Africa) and does not really belong in the western hemisphere.
I would like to see it eliminated.

 

[Orodruin]

Oh, yeah, I'd agree with that. I'm not seeing anything about a "call to arms" in that article though. Can you provide a quote of Trump's call to arms?

The appeal to "second amendment people" along with Trump's current rhetoric is what worries me. Regardless of whether he intends it as a call to arms or not, I do not consider it beyond some of his more radical right extrimist followers to interpret it as such. I even saw a video on CNN where a woman in the audience at a Pence rally called for armed revolution should Trump lose the election. Granted, Pence tried to put a lid on that, but there are people in Trump's ranks that consider this as a viable (or necessary) measure in case of a (now rather likely) Trump loss. I do not think Trump thinks or cares about the consequences of appealing to this crowd.

 

[mheslep]

Trump's views on minorities and women might make me scared of the dark,

Plenty of crude remarks were circulated months ago. See https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6777 , "taco bowl engagement", along with an attempt at Jew baiting. All of this odious. I don't know that scare is suddenly in order, unless it is to ignore some comments and emphasize others.

but this scares me in broad daylight: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ection-claims-raise-historical-alarms-n667831

Democracy builds upon trust and accepting that a majority of voters might not agree with your own opinion (as almost half the people in Great Britain experienced this summer).

Without pointing to something he can correct, those are useless and inflammatory comments from Trump. But election dirty tricks and accepting the will of the majority are two different things. Also, bias and dirty dealing by those charged with neutrality in this election cycle are not without basis, namely the collusion between the DNC and Clinton Campaign to beat Sanders.

This behaviour

seems to me as it belongs in a state on the verge of becoming totalitarian, not a country that styles itself as the greatest democracy on Earth.

Yes, poor behavior (if those guys were who they say they were). Actual violence is worse.

 

[jim hardy]

his thinly veiled hints at "second amendment people" to "do something about it".

? Ignoramus reporters spun that one into the dark side. It was a clear reference to NRA's "Institute for Legislative Action" who basically lobby legislatures for common sense .

Source- my vivid recollection of the quote itself . I said "They'll make hay with that one. "

,

 

[Orodruin]

Yes, poor behavior (if those guys were who they say they were). Actual violence is worse.

The "if those guys were who they say they were" is a baseless accusation in this case unless you have actual evidence they were not. That such things happen does not mean that any case will be of this form. You may just as well accuse the people in your second video of being paid by Trump. To think that this sort of behaviour is limited to one side of the fence is naive.

Of course, violence or reprecussions based on voting preference in all forms must be shunned in a democracy. You are free to think your political opponents are idiots, but they have a democratic right to be and it is your task to peacefully convince a majority that you are right.

 

[Orodruin]

It was a clear reference to NRA'a "Institute for Legal Action" who basically lobby legislatures for common sense .

I strongly disagree with this. That it can be interpreted this way does not mean it is a far stretch to reach the other interpretation. The problem here is that Trump makes statements that are often not coherent or precise and vividly open to interpretation. He often let's people fill in the blanks themselves, creating an illusion that he is saying exactly what you want to hear.

Did he mention the "Institute for Legal Action" in the statement? If not it is not a clear reference.

Igmoramus reporters spun that one into the dark side.

This sounds rather paranoid to me, but typical of what Trump tends to do - blaming the system rather than finding a coherent argument.

As a non-American, I understand that you may find Clinton unsuitable, but I find the alternative several orders of magnitude worse. If the US was not such a major power worldwide, I might not have cared as much and considered it entertainment (in Sweden a political ad with your opponent barking like a dog would be strictly counter productive and probably lose you the election), but this fact makes it difficult to ignore.

 

[jim hardy]

Yes, poor behavior (if those guys were who they say they were). Actual violence is worse.

i can't say who's who, no mainstream source i can find is touching it yet

From mhselep's link

Two of Creamer’s underlings in the video, Zulema Rodriguez and Aaron Black take credit for organizing the March Chicago protest which made Trump cancel his rally and left police officers injured.

Federal Election Commission confirms Zulema Rodriguez was paid around $20K.
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursem...ent_name=zulema+rodriguez&max_date=10/18/2016

see what if anything falls out of it.

old jim

 

[jim hardy]

I strongly disagree with this. That it can be interpreted this way does not mean it is a far stretch to reach the other interpretation. The problem here is that Trump makes statements that are often not coherent or precise and vividly open to interpretation. He often let's people fill in the blanks themselves, creating an illusion that he is saying exactly what you want to hear.

Did he mention the "Institute for Legal Action" in the statement? If not it is not a clear reference.

Did you see the statement delivered? It was clearly an afterthought,

Duhhh, Senate confirms justices and there is plenty of support in Senate (as well as general public ) for 2nd amendment issues.I grant you Trump is not the smoothest of public speakers.

 

[mheslep]

The "if those guys were who they say they were" is a baseless accusation in this case unless you have actual evidence they were not. That such things happen does not mean that any case will be of this form.

True, and my guess is those guys are what they say they are. But I don't know and neither do you. Your quote has no more basis than what those two random guys say. The local media outlet gave no independently checked background, no address, nothing.

You may just as well accuse the people in your second video of being paid by Trump.

Both are long time Democratic operatives with a public record. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sbfoval , Bob Creamer.

To think that this sort of behaviour is limited to one side of the fence is naive.

Who's one sided? Somebody firebombed a GOP office in North Carolina a couple days ago, a few months ago some Brit tried to assassinate Trump at one his rallies, and apparently two armed Trump supporters stood outside a Democratic office in Virginia for hours. You pick the latter to support an end-of-Democracy narrative.

 

[russ_watters]

The appeal to "second amendment people" along with Trump's current rhetoric is what worries me. Regardless of whether he intends it as a call to arms or not, I do not consider it beyond some of his more radical right extrimist followers to interpret it as such. I even saw a video on CNN where a woman in the audience at a Pence rally called for armed revolution should Trump lose the election. Granted, Pence tried to put a lid on that, but there are people in Trump's ranks that consider this as a viable (or necessary) measure in case of a (now rather likely) Trump loss. I do not think Trump thinks or cares about the consequences of appealing to this crowd.

As I pointed out (and will expand), his Second Amendment appeal was months ago, before his implosion and was if anything a threat on candidate Hillary, not President Elect Hillary or the election/transition system. It can't be construed as a suggested recourse against a rigged election. And that's even assuming we consider it coherent/specific enough to be a real threat/suggestion. And setting aside that no one took him up on it. So I'm reading that as confirmation that the link that scares you doesn't actually contain content on the thing you fear - you've generated the thing you fear from vague implications of other things.

Look, everyone is entitled to their fears - you can fear whatever you want for any reason you want. But when Trump hasn't said the things you fear he might someday say, that means the fear is mostly a product of your imagination. Again, you are entitled to it, but personally, I'm going to choose not to fear something that for the time being isn't real/hasn't happened. Maybe that makes me naive and maybe I won't see it until it's too late whereas you/others are seeing it before it happens. But to me this just looks like an extension of the early "Trump is a fascist/Nazi" rhetoric that opened the door for wild speculation that he could do anything a an actual 1930s fascist/Nazi might have done. Which to me sounds far fetched, to put it mildly.

The problem here is that Trump makes statements that are often not coherent or precise and vividly open to interpretation.

Agreed. But a "call to action" is not something that can be incoherent or open to interpretation if he wants it to be successful. Again, you are free to harness your imagination to generate focused meanings to fear from Trump's incoherent statements if you want, but I choose not to and I believe that objectively the risk that incoherent statements could lead to coherent action is very small.

The "if those guys were who they say they were" is a baseless accusation in this case unless you have actual evidence they were not. That such things happen does not mean that any case will be of this form. You may just as well accuse the people in your second video of being paid by Trump. To think that this sort of behaviour is limited to one side of the fence is naive.

I think you completely misread that: mheslep was being deferential toward your position by offering that the evidence he presented to counter you was unsubstatiated. But he was otherwise just holding up a mirror to you. Everything you said in that quote, you could read back to yourself in my voice because it is pretty close to exactly the point I'm trying to make to you. You're taking vague scraps and crafting a narrative out of them. When it is pointed out to you that vague scraps exist on the other side that if someone wanted to they could craft their own mirror image narrative, you say...that. So I guess in an odd way -- I agree with everything you just said.

 

[BillTre]

A lot of this discussion has concerned itself with parsing the exact meanings of words and phrases of the Donald.
This is not going to be very fruitful and in many cases, I feel, misses an important point.

There is a long tradition in American politics using "dog-whistle" words and phrases or saying things in a way that can have an intended meaning for your rabid followers and a convenient more innocuous meaning for the more general public. This is not done unintentionally. Trump does it a lot and he is good at it.

Dog-whistles are something heard by the rabid followers (an example: skittles now seems to be a clear symbol to represent non-whites to racists, but is largely known as candy to normal people).

 

[Orodruin]

Look, everyone is entitled to their fears - you can fear whatever you want for any reason you want. But when Trump hasn't said the things you fear he might someday say, that means the fear is mostly a product of your imagination. Again, you are entitled to it, but personally, I'm going to choose not to fear something that for the time being isn't real/hasn't happened. Maybe that makes me naive and maybe I won't see it until it's too late whereas you/others are seeing it before it happens. But to me this just looks like an extension of the early "Trump is a fascist/Nazi" rhetoric that opened the door for wild speculation that he could do anything a an actual 1930s fascist/Nazi might have done. Which to me sounds far fetched, to put it mildly.

I do not see how you read any of this into my comments. The main point from the beginning was the degradation of the faith in democracy. To have a candidate question the legitimacy of the election before it has even taken place is unprecedented. You say you are holding up a mirror, but to me as an external observer it is really Trump who is in need of one. You are also failing to acknowledge the fact that what I was doing to mhsleep was just that.

Again, I am sure there are idiots on both sides. What scares me are not those idiots. It is how the front person they are following respects democracy that is the issue. If the leader does not respect democracy, we find ourselves in adangerous situation.

It may very well be that this is unfounded and that Trump will go quietly when he loses (as seems likely from current polls). In that case this line of rhetoric is just misplaced as it might rally his base but is likely to drive away undecided voters. I feel this is Trump's main problem in getting elected - he appeals and attracts a certain base, but his rhetoric is off putting to undecideds that he would need to attract in order to actually win. As someone put it, he is attractive to a majority of republican voters but not to a majority of voters. Clinton has the same but opposite problem, but seemingly to a lesser extent.

 

[BillTre]

In that case this line of rhetoric is just misplaced as it might rally his base but is likely to drive away undecided voters. I feel this is Trump's main problem in getting elected - he appeals and attracts a certain base, but his rhetoric is off putting to undecideds that he would need to attract in order to actually win. As someone put it, he is attractive to a majority of republican voters but not to a majority of voters. Clinton has the same but opposite problem, but seemingly to a lesser extent.

Not only is Trump's rhetoric repelling Women (both parties), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Republicans who disagree with his recent blathering, and White men with a college education, but his claims that the elections is rigged will likely reduce turnout of the people who might otherwise vote for him (since if the big guys says its rigged, why bother to vote?).
He also has virtually no ground game (to coordinate getting people to the polls on election day) and relatively little money for advertisements.
His main innovation seems to be encouraging people to go to neighboring areas (with minorities) in an attempt at veiled intimation.

His rigging claims are all about protecting his ego and image since it is clear to everybody, including him, he is going to lose, possibly in a landslide.
He is a small person.

 

[mheslep]

i can't say who's who, no mainstream source is...

Took them two days, popped up 4 hrs ago.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/1...rative-fired-another-resigns-griffin-lead.cnn

 

[BillTre]

Would not surprise me if its true (politics!), but the guy making the video is a know faker of videos.

 

[DiracPool]

Maybe that makes me naive and maybe I won't see it until it's too late whereas you/others are seeing it before it happens. But to me this just looks like an extension of the early "Trump is a fascist/Nazi" rhetoric that opened the door for wild speculation that he could do anything a an actual 1930s fascist/Nazi might have done. Which to me sounds far fetched, to put it mildly.

I've tried my best to stay away from the political arguments here because I've been admonished by an admin/staff member(s) when I've spoken. You can read the transcripts. However, I feel a devotion to this community to state what I think in the spirit of American democracy and free speech and if the admin/mentors want to ban me permanently then go right ahead.

Here's the deal. This election is too important to equivocate on. IMHO, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution. This whole deal of rigged elections is a classic case of a paranoid delusional individual.

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people. There's 20 days to decide.

 

[OmCheeto]

My sister send me another item today, regarding the Clintons and Haiti.
I researched it, and found some truth in it, but nothing to get riled up about.
The story she supplied me, was a bit on the hyperbolic side, to say the least.
And I told her that, and asked if she ever researched any of these stories, or just believed every bad thing said about the Clintons.

Her response was interesting; "I have been watching the corruption of the Clintons unfold for years. I don't have to dissect every breath they take."

I'm curious, what percentage of people, like her, made up their minds years ago, that the Clintons are all a bunch of crooks, and nothing will change their mind on the matter.

If that's the case, then I'll just unsubscribe from the thread, again. No point in wasting any more time, really.

ps. I may lurk around though. I'm curious how big a deal the new Poopergate scandal is going to be.

 

[Orodruin]

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people. There's 20 days to decide.

Well, according to the polls and the FiveThirtyEight probabilistic models, it seems that many have already realized that they do not want Trump's finger on the Red Button (or whatever other reason). Their current estimate is that Clinton is more likely to win Texas than Trump is to win the election. Not only that, but it would seem that all the commotion of republicans pulling Trump support or not has resulted in the democrats now having a 3-in-4-chance of gaining control over the senate as well after being essentially a toss-up a week ago. Let us see how the third debate changes these numbers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't like Donald Trump. I also don't like Message #1402. If that message were instead about Hillary Clinton as being an unacceptable candidate, it would have been removed. Instead it's "liked" by the staff.

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time. Pollsters have learned to correct the raw sampling data on the left-right axis, but that's not really the axis this election is about: it's the elitist-deplorable axis. We simply have little experience with this: the Brexit polls, which have some similarities, were 6 points off the actual referendum. I would not be surprised if they were off by more than this - in either direction.

 

[jim hardy]

Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution.

Sounds speculative to me.

If you watched that recent Frontline "Choice 2016" , the one that goes back to early childhood of both ,

they were both pushed to achieve by fathers - one who controlled with shaming and withholding approval , the other with "setting the bar" impossibly high
One retreated into secretiveness and manipulativeness
One compensated by braggadocio and flamboyance
one set out to change the world
and one fell into the Hugh Heffner trap of hedonism and ego
Source: that Frontline
I'd say they're both scarred .

Behind the door waits either a lady, a gentleman , or a tiger.
How does one quantify the relative dangerousnesses ?

Out of 300 million people how'd we pick these two ?

 

[Orodruin]

I don't like Donald Trump. I also don't like Message #1402. If that message were instead about Hillary Clinton as being an unacceptable candidate, it would have been removed. Instead it's "liked" by the staff.

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time. Pollsters have learned to correct the raw sampling data on the left-right axis, but that's not really the axis this election is about: it's the elitist-deplorable axis. We simply have little experience with this: the Brexit polls, which have some similarities, were 6 points off the actual referendum. I would not be surprised if they were off by more than this - in either direction.

While I do agree on the absolute scale, I do think that these models are rather sensitive to which direction the wind blows in. Even with an average polling error at the level of the Brexit vote, Clinton would still be competitive. FiveThirtyEight also had an article on this a few weeks back comparing the situations. Their conclusion was that it was certainly a possibility that Clinton was being overrated, but not as clearly as for Brexit. An argument could even be made for the polls underestimating Clinton's lead based on polling demographics. On my mobile currently so I have some difficulties digging it out.

 

[Bystander]

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time.

'Tis the time for the mythical (or not) "silent majority" to make their voices heard. If 2016 doesn't do it, they do not exist.

 

[Student100]

Here's the deal. This election is too important to equivocate on. IMHO, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution. This whole deal of rigged elections is a classic case of a paranoid delusional individual.

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people.

Pure hyperbole. Playing an armchair psychiatrist is silly.

One, the president isn't all that powerful with nuclear weapons or in general. They're much more just a figurehead for the state. Back to nuclear weapons, there is no "nuclear button." He can unilaterally decide that an attack should be made, but during the verification process the SecDef needs to verify the order. He can't veto the decision, but that doesn't mean he can't refuse to preform the verification. Then it goes through a whole chain of two person integrity before any missiles are actually launched. Also, the joint chiefs are informed of the decision, so there are many possible breaks in the chain if the president just loses his mind and wants to nuke Hawaii or something.

Further, Trump was at one time a vocal critic of nuclear proliferation. You may not agree with with everything he says, but he's right on that.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I agree with last posts by Vanadium50 and Bystander. Just like we were surprised by Clinton's defeat in the Michigan primary, we could be in for another surprise on November 8.