Jump to content

US elections - may the polls be ever in your favor


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

I actually think a large part of it is that there are many who don't understand what might make a person a bigot. For example, I know a lot of Republicans who don't think the GOP platform is necessarily anti-LGBT and they cite odd reasons like the fact that gay marriage is an 'extra right' or that it should be a state issue or that the topic is only meant to be divisive, or that the party can't be anti-LGBTQ because people at the convention clapped loudly for Peter Thiel when he said he was proud to be a gay man.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

He's not a neo-con or an isolationist. He's a Late Roman Republic style imperialist. His closest analogue would be a less financially succesful Marcus Licinius Crassus.

He's a pure demagogue (though I think isolationism is part of his demagoguery). Marcus Licinius Crassus was also a demagogue. It's why it's impossible to discuss this election without looking at the movements of society as a whole - demagogues rise in response to social change and pressure, they don't cause it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Swordfish said:

The argument was that that kind of language, even if there is no intent to actually call for violence, creates an atmosphere in which violence is more likely.

So it either does, or it does not. Picking and choosing when the same type of language contributes to acts of violence and when it does not makes no sense.

 

Of course it makes sense. Partly because rhetorical use of violent language or imagery is not all the same. And partly because of who the audience is that's listening to and being influenced by the messaging and either reading between the lines or not reading between the lines, regardless of whether there was any intent on the part of the speaker to have any between the lines meaning to what he or she said.

Quote

Trump said Tuesday evening that he was simply trying to unify gun owners against Clinton in the voting booth.

In some ways I could almost buy that. It's likely that among strong advocates of gun ownership and limited or no constraints on second amendment rights there are 2 types of people, right and far right. It's also likely that many of the most strident of these people either hate the federal govt so much that they don;t vote, or they tend to vote for the fringe people, like Libertarians, and so their votes are wasted. One could try to argue that Trump is trying to pull a Hillary, in that Hillary is trying to convince Bernie supporters that they need to vote ofr her to keep Trump out. So Trump needs to get the right-wing protest voters to swing in behind him to keep Hillary out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Of course it makes sense. Partly because rhetorical use of violent language or imagery is not all the same. And partly because of who the audience is that's listening to and being influenced by the messaging and either reading between the lines or not reading between the lines, regardless of whether there was any intent on the part of the speaker to have any between the lines meaning to what he or she said.

 

No, it really doesn't.  We are talking about public statements.  No one controls who has access to hearing them.  Once they are out there, they are out there.  

Again, i don't think this is an issue,  but some people do.

 

But lets say you're right, just for the sake of conversation.  

Is there some evidence that you can use to show me which audiences are more receptive to acting out on this kind of sublmiinal influence?  is there some pattern among assassins from history that allows you to determine in advance how likely this kind of speech is to influence them to act?  If so I'd love to see it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

But lets say you're right, just for the sake of conversation.  

Is there some evidence that you can use to show me which audiences are more receptive to acting out on this kind of sublmiinal influence?  is there some pattern among assassins from history that allows you to determine in advance how likely this kind of speech is to influence them to act?  If so I'd love to see it.

 Does it really matter? Is it too much to expect that our potential leaders speak civilly and not hurl veiled threats of violence against one another? 

 You often talk about damaging the discourse. Do you not find this sort of message damaging? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

1) Does it really matter? Is it too much to expect that our potential leaders speak civilly and not hurl veiled threats of violence against one another? 

 2) You often talk about damaging the discourse. Do you not find this sort of message damaging? 

1) It is too much to expect - with today's dumbed down, consumption/celebrity/hype driven humanity, the only way to get noticed is make a fuss. What did John Doe say, 'Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention.'

2) It's meant to be damaging - it has to be damaging. Sledgehammers, remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Does it really matter? Is it too much to expect that our potential leaders speak civilly and not hurl veiled threats of violence against one another? 

 

It does not matter in that context, no.  We would likely disagree over what constitutes a veiled threat of violence though.  i don't think  Obama's quote or Palins poster rise to that level.

 

Quote

 You often talk about damaging the discourse. Do you not find this sort of message damaging? 

It can be in poor in poor taste, certainly.  And this is an area where I think you CAN make a distinction that Obama's movie quote is less bad than some of the language Palin used.  But it's really hard to generalize.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

It does not matter in that context, no.  We would likely disagree over what constitutes a veiled threat of violence though.  i don't think  Obama's quote or Palins poster rise to that level.

 

It can be in poor in poor taste, certainly.  And this is an area where I think you CAN make a distinction that Obama's movie quote is less bad than some of the language Palin used.  But it's really hard to generalize.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm primarily referring to Trump's statement from the other day. It's not acceptable language for a presidential candidate to use, and I hope it costs him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm primarily referring to Trump's statement from the other day. It's not acceptable language for a presidential candidate to use, and I hope it costs him.

 

He's all but done either way, barring any major Clinton scandals.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Trump's quote; "
 

Quote

 

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick…

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

 

OK, first the bolded. 

The Supreme Court cannot abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Changing the Constitution is a long drawn out process and in the end, the change has to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states.  Hilary won't pick her judges, then have them snap their fingers and boom! the 2nd Amendment is gone. 

So even suggesting that her judge picks would doom the Amendment is wrong from the get go.  No way would 38 states ratify such an huge change.  So his next suggestion about 2nd Amendment folks isn't even needed. 

But Trump doesn't deal with reality and neither do his followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm primarily referring to Trump's statement from the other day. It's not acceptable language for a presidential candidate to use, and I hope it costs him.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, Clinton made an even less subtle suggestion or desire for the assassination of Obama in 2008.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

 

Why are any of these clowns in the running for the presidency?

 

9 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think it's pretty standard for Republicans to refuse to accept the election of a Democratic president. You could see it in their public comments about Bill Clinton in the early 90s and in the way they've behaved like armchair guerillas throughout Obama's presidency. Their immediate response to losing a presidential election is to deny the legitimacy of a Democratic President and obstruct him at unprecedented levels and try to find a way to remove him from office. Clinton gave them an opening with his cover-up of the Lewinsky affair, and the constant Republican scandal-fishing over Benghazi, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, etc have all been of the same piece. This attack on the legitimacy of a Democratic president comes direct from party leaders.

They tried to de-legitimize Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 by blaming it on ACORN or the Black Panthers or skewed polls. Trump and his minions are already saying this election is going to be rigged. They are de-legitimizing a potential Democratic President three months before the votes are cast. 

Meanwhile, lower level party actors and functionaries have explicitly mentioned "2nd Amendment remedies" for problems that the party has been unable to solve at the ballot box. Add Trump's combustible comments all through election season, mainstreaming and encouraging violence against protesters. Add the chants of "lock her up!" and "bring down the bitch!" and the relentless demonization of Obama and then Hillary Clinton as enemies of America, topped with a political convention that sounded more like a book-burning rally in Nuremberg in 1933, and the Republicans have kind of painted themselves into a corner with their extreme rhetoric.

So I take this comment from Trump to be the natural progression of Republican rhetoric and their belief that any Democratic President is illegitimate and forced on the country by nefarious anti-American interests, and will take away your guns, destroy the police, give guns to homicidal immigrants who want to rape your children and sell them drugs. A "regular" Republican may well be shocked by Trump's comments, but they shouldn't be. It's what the Republicans have been building to for a generation.

Did you forget the eight years we had to listen to comments about Bush being "selected not elected"?  Seems like delegitimizing the opponent is a common political strategy.  But I am sure it's very different when Democrats do it.:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tempra said:

 

Did you forget the eight years we had to listen to comments about Bush being "selected not elected"?  Seems like delegitimizing the opponent is a common political strategy.  But I am sure it's very different when Democrats do it.:thumbsup:

You are correct.  Apples and Oranges are completely the same.

People on the left carried a grudge of course.  After all in an election with razor thin margins where mail-in votes still had not been completely counted the Supreme Court stopped the process and selected Bush.  And while grudges were held show me the point where active congress members from the Democrats repeatedly delegitimized the Presidency throughout. Actions matter in this context.

How this compares to a candidate already calling the process rigged when it is pretty clear he is headed for a blowout loss; after 8 years of sitting representatives searching for birth certificates and refusing to work with the POTUS in anyway is quite beyond me. 

'Listening to comments' from the hipster at the coffee shop is not equal to actions taken by elected representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Here is Trump's quote; "
 

OK, first the bolded. 

The Supreme Court cannot abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Changing the Constitution is a long drawn out process and in the end, the change has to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states.  Hilary won't pick her judges, then have them snap their fingers and boom! the 2nd Amendment is gone. 

So even suggesting that her judge picks would doom the Amendment is wrong from the get go.  No way would 38 states ratify such an huge change.  So his next suggestion about 2nd Amendment folks isn't even needed. 

But Trump doesn't deal with reality and neither do his followers.

To be fair to Trump (and believe me, that was a difficult thing to type), what he means is that the judiciary has the ability to gut anything via interpretation. The 14th and 15th Amendments were, for example, regularly gutted by court rulings until the 1950s.

A court could, hypothetically, interpret "arms" in the 2nd Amendment to refer to the biological appendages, rather than weapons. In which case, no-one's right to bear arms is being infringed by gun confiscation. That said, interpretation makes the law generally, and nowhere is that more true than with the 2nd Amendment (what the Amendment "means" is up to the courts - a Supreme Court under Trump could, again hypothetically, interpret the words to mean that individuals are allowed biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons for personal use).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Did you forget the eight years we had to listen to comments about Bush being "selected not elected"?  Seems like delegitimizing the opponent is a common political strategy.  But I am sure it's very different when Democrats do it.:thumbsup:

Anyone complaining about 2004 was just silly. Complaining about 2000 though... and notwithstanding the shenanigans of that time, Al Gore urged his supporters to respect the court ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

You are correct.  Apples and Oranges are completely the same.

People on the left carried a grudge of course.  After all in an election with razor thin margins where mail-in votes still had not been completely counted the Supreme Court stopped the process and selected Bush.  And while grudges were held show me the point where active congress members from the Democrats repeatedly delegitimized the Presidency throughout. Actions matter in this context.

How this compares to a candidate already calling the process rigged when it is pretty clear he is headed for a blowout loss; after 8 years of sitting representatives searching for birth certificates and refusing to work with the POTUS in anyway is quite beyond me. 

'Listening to comments' from the hipster at the coffee shop is not equal to actions taken by elected representatives.

So, like, totally different.  Got it!

As for an example of congressmen attempting to delegitimize Bush?  Look no further than the obstructionism surrounding Bush's judicial nominees, which is often cited as an example of Republicans delegitimizing Obama.  That's very different, too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

Agreed.  Unfortunately, Clinton made an even less subtle suggestion or desire for the assassination of Obama in 2008.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

 

Why are any of these clowns in the running for the presidency?

 

And in that article this is the Clinton campaign's response 

Quote

 UPDATE: Clinton's campaign has put out a statement in her name, apologizing for the remark.

The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Sen. Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family, was in any way offensive," she said.

Quite different to the Trump campaign's response.

Huge screw up on the part of CNN if there was no conversation between the USSS and the Trump campaign. Gotta go to air with the scoop, fact checking is for pussies, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Missouri is a less dramatic case of what has happened to Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky: a Democratic coalition built on decent support from rural whites has found itself scrambling over the last decade or so.

Note that McCain carried Missouri in 2008, even while being thrashed nationwide. The Missouri Bellwether pretty much died then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

So, like, totally different.  Got it!

As for an example of congressmen attempting to delegitimize Bush?  Look no further than the obstructionism surrounding Bush's judicial nominees, which is often cited as an example of Republicans delegitimizing Obama.  That's very different, too, right?

Exactly how many judges were prevented from assuming office because of this obstructionism? Because I think there'd have to be quite a few to match the Republican antics of a) blockading the DC court; and b ) stonewalling the president on the Scalia replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

So, like, totally different.  Got it!

 

Sure.  Idle chatter from random citizens totally equals actions by those in power.  Sure.  Absolutely your sarcasm bites deep.

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

So, like, totally different.  Got it!

As for an example of congressmen attempting to delegitimize Bush?  Look no further than the obstructionism surrounding Bush's judicial nominees, which is often cited as an example of Republicans delegitimizing Obama.  That's very different, too, right?

 I know you read these threads and have seen the charts showing the rate of obstructionism of judicial nominees.  Here, have another chart showing how bad Bush's rate of vacancies is; hell in his 6th term it almost reached the point where it was half of Obama's pace.  Totally talking about the same thing here!

edit:  Didn't like the tone I used, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...