US elections - may the polls be ever in your favor

[Fez]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Trump has clearly discarded the dog whistle for the megaphone and exposed a lot of repugnant beliefs on the right, but I don't think that's the case here. I think most Republicans are genuinely disgusted with his comments. 

Not most. Some. I'd unscientifically break down Republicans as follows: 

50% True believers in Trump.

30% Tribalists who support him because he is the nominee, their level of disgust varies dramatically and it depends on the issue. And some aren't really disgusted at all, they just think he is a bad candidate. Some may still break away from Trump, but most won't. They usually won't publicly say anything though; the Kahn issue being the exception.

10% Genuinely disgusted with Trump and won't vote for him but not willing to support Clinton either.

10% Gone all the way against Trump, are now supporting Clinton.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Fez,

Idk if your breakdown is accurate or not, but I was talking Trump's comment from yesterday. It was my mistake to make it plural, but I think it's fair to say that most Republican's were disgusted with what he said. 

[BloodRider]

5 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats what we all are told, and is probably true. But we really only know about it and are upset about it because its constantly being rammed down our throats that this is the case. I would suggest that in reality the effect isn't that noticeable. . Before the 2008 crash inequality wasn't even talked about and most people didn't really even think about it, now suddenly its the one thing that everyone is upset about, yet their lives are essentially not much different to how they were.

Bullshit.  Demonstrable levels of wealth were destroyed during that crash.  Much of it was in people's IRA, and much of the remaining was in home equity.  People saw that, and recognized the effect it had for them - especially boomers as they tried to retire.  And Gen Xers as they tried to advance into Boomer's places who were not retiring.  And Millennials who were entering a job market at extremely depressed pay rates.

Even before the crash, events like Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc. folding made it pretty clear that the wealth could fall ass over teakettle backwards from outrage into money while destroying massive amounts of capital and savings of investors portfolios.

 

EDIT:  Whoops - Sorry - Just saw the Mod spots about thread creep.  Please ignore this post.

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fez,

Idk if your breakdown is accurate or not, but I was talking Trump's comment from yesterday. It was my mistake to make it plural, but I think it's fair to say that most Republican's were disgusted with what he said. 

See I think his comment yesterday was less disgusting to most Republicans than the other big ones (Kahn, Curiel, the disabled reporter, etc.). Almost all Republicans have a very big blind spot when it comes to talking about the second amendment.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Yeah I dont buy the the hype over the R's collectively being horrified of Trumps views. He's just been less covert about presenting what these people have believed in for years anyways. Its been the anti minority, anti labor, anti female, anti poor, anti immigrant party for several decades now. Trump isnt even expressing anything new, most of the consternation is solely over la Donald's lack of tact and lack of coded language used to express the bigotry they've long held but have not "publicly trumpeted" in past cycles. 

Theres a small minority of R's who arent bigots, but its on the order of only 10% or so imo. Most of the clamoring and anti Trumpers are just making noise over anticipating his candidacy losing badly, they are on board with the xenophobic aspect of Trump. Just not cool with his lack of hiding it well enough.

[Weeping Sore]

"Russia, if you're listening, just think if someone were to slip a slow-acting neurotoxin into Hillary's breakfast burrito. I would love it! Just sayin' is all..." 

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes when was the last time a war truly affected the US, they've never been invaded, Pearl Harbour was the closest they've ever come to actually experiencing it in the last century or so. Wars are far away things, that are almost abstract to most people. Its easy to survive that. Other countries experience true hardship, Western countries not so much, not for the everyday person.

We're in a very odd time, where peoples lives are generally ok, but the perception of society and the state of things is very negative and people are getting highly reactionary and angry. Hard to know why that is, I think the media and the internet are partly to blame here, it stokes tensions, creates sides and tribes and sets people off against each other. I can see it as a Brit, who is dealing with Brexit, those who were most outraged by immigration or Europe had very little interaction with those elements, but the concept of what was happening was making them angry. You can see the same thing with Trump, its ideas and tribes that are fuelling it.

Yeah, in addition to the concept of war almost always being 'over there', the plentiful history of America at war has, with one notable exception, always been a war of their own choosing. That pattern of almost never having war thrust upon you but always being a voluntary process is pretty unprecedented, and probably goes a long way towards explaining why most Americans are fairly untroubled by their constant state of war in other people's land. 

Ironically, the only war which was not one of American choosing is WWII, the war about which the greatest mythology and misconceptions (re: US entry) exist, to the point that most Americans think the US went to war to save Europe or the Jews or stop Hitler or w/e, which is far from the truth. So, again, the one exception is nullified and the sense that war is a voluntary process is perpetuated, and therefore many Americans have a disassociative concept of the realities, and can hand wave things like civilian casualties etc. as long as they remain 'over there'. This is in part why 9-11 had such a profound effect.

[James Arryn]

17 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yeah I dont buy the the hype over the R's collectively being horrified of Trumps views. He's just been less covert about presenting what these people have believed in for years anyways. Its been the anti minority, anti labor, anti female, anti poor, anti immigrant party for several decades now. Trump isnt even expressing anything new, most of the consternation is solely over la Donald's lack of tact and lack of coded language used to express the bigotry they've long held but have not "publicly trumpeted" in past cycles. 

Theres a small minority of R's who arent bigots, but its on the order of only 10% or so imo. Most of the clamoring and anti Trumpers are just making noise over anticipating his candidacy losing badly, they are on board with the xenophobic aspect of Trump. Just not cool with his lack of hiding it well enough.

Well, either way they have to own it now. Prior to Trump's rise, critics of the Republican ethos often pointed to fairly obvious albeit often indirect manifestations of bigotry, but those nuances allowed some to consider it one among many factors, thereby being able to distance themselves from that kind of 'fringe' element while supporting similar policies.

But Trump has run largely on bigotry of one kind or another. Nativism, religious intolerance, anti-immigration, sexism...these have been his principle planks, and in an exceptionally open fashion, and it was on the strength of these ad-Homs that he shot to the front of the GOP pack. So while I applaud individual Republicans who are disgusted by his rhetoric and are withdrawing support, I think they need to do some soul searching about what their party actually is now. Maybe the party's changed, or maybe they themselves have changed, or maybe they previously misunderstood how much of a determinative role prejudice plays in their party, but it's impossible to look at Trump's comments and subsequent party numbers and avoid the obvious conclusion that this is a major part of what the modern Republican Party is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, Fez said:

See I think his comment yesterday was less disgusting to most Republicans than the other big ones (Kahn, Curiel, the disabled reporter, etc.). Almost all Republicans have a very big blind spot when it comes to talking about the second amendment.

But he wasn't directly talking about the second amendment. He was suggesting that violence may be an acceptance and necessary means to prevent the repeal of the second amendment. Idk where most people would rank his remark with all the other nonsense he's spotted, but I'd guess it would be close to the top. The only people I've seen defend and/or excuse the comment have been Pence and Giuliani, and while I'm sure there will be more who do, I've got to think that most Republicans found what he said to be despicable. 

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But he wasn't directly talking about the second amendment. He was suggesting that violence may be an acceptance and necessary means to prevent the repeal of the second amendment. Idk where most people would rank his remark with all the other nonsense he's spotted, but I'd guess it would be close to the top. The only people I've seen defend and/or excuse the comment have been Pence and Giuliani, and while I'm sure there will be more who do, I've got to think that most Republicans found what he said to be despicable. 

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.

[sperry]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yeah I dont buy the the hype over the R's collectively being horrified of Trumps views. He's just been less covert about presenting what these people have believed in for years anyways. Its been the anti minority, anti labor, anti female, anti poor, anti immigrant party for several decades now. Trump isnt even expressing anything new, most of the consternation is solely over la Donald's lack of tact and lack of coded language used to express the bigotry they've long held but have not "publicly trumpeted" in past cycles. 

Theres a small minority of R's who arent bigots, but its on the order of only 10% or so imo. Most of the clamoring and anti Trumpers are just making noise over anticipating his candidacy losing badly, they are on board with the xenophobic aspect of Trump. Just not cool with his lack of hiding it well enough.

 

Only 10% or so of Republicans aren't bigots?  Get a grip.

[Fez]

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But he wasn't directly talking about the second amendment. He was suggesting that violence may be an acceptance and necessary means to prevent the repeal of the second amendment. Idk where most people would rank his remark with all the other nonsense he's spotted, but I'd guess it would be close to the top. The only people I've seen defend and/or excuse the comment have been Pence and Giuliani, and while I'm sure there will be more who do, I've got to think that most Republicans found what he said to be despicable. 

Yes. But he was talking about violence via the second amendment, which lets Republicans embrace the blind spot and claim he was just joking (like Ryan did). If he was talking about poisoning or the electric chair or such, it'd be a lot harder for them to do that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Only 10% or so of Republicans aren't bigots?  Get a grip.

Ok, maybe like 12%, it's pretty much part of the platform.  

[sperry]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok, maybe like 12%, it's pretty much part of the platform.  

 

Sigh, this is why I have to stay out of political discussion.

[Larry of the Lawn]

29 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Sigh, this is why I have to stay out of political discussion.

Just read the platform.  Especially, the shit on marriage and immigration, but really just take your pick.  It's all right there.Just read the platform

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@DanteGabriel,

I 100% agree with your first two paragraphs, but you lost me a bit after that. Yes, Sharon Angle did suggest that second amendment remedies might have to be pursued if she lost, but I don't equate that with any kind of wide spread support for the idea. There certainly are Republicans and other right wing types that support the concept, but I think it's a very small minority with relatively no political power or capital. So I think it's wrong to suggest that this is the logical progression of the Republican Party. No other candidate would have gone there, and I think the same can be said for 99% of elected Republicans at the Congressional and Gubernatorial level. 

That said, what makes Trump's comment particularity unsettling is what you laid out in the third paragraph. When you combine it with everything else he's been saying, the demonizing of the other, that the system is rigged and that it's the end of the country if he loses, all fosters an environment where someone from that small minority could act in a horrific way, should Trump lose the election. 

@Fez,

That's a fair point. 

[BloodRider]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Just read the platform.  Especially, the shit on marriage and immigration, but really just take your pick.  It's all right there.Just read the platform

 

53 minutes ago, sperry said:

Sigh, this is why I have to stay out of political discussion.

There is a theory that Dog Whistle Politics is as much to avoid direct accusations of bigotry by political opponents, as it is allowing supporters to keep fooling themselves that their beliefs are not bigoted.  It like it is used to create a safe space for bigots.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

Sigh, this is why I have to stay out of political discussion.

I agree.  The number is much larger and I can't stand when these radical progressives keep underestimating the percentage of bigotry in the Republican party.  

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

There is a theory that Dog Whistle Politics is as much to avoid direct accusations of bigotry by political opponents, as it is allowing supporters to keep fooling themselves that their beliefs are not bigoted.  It like it is used to create a safe space for bigots.

But it is also used to allow bigots and non-bigots to remain mostly unaware that not everyone in the party shares their views.  Which is what Sperry (and I) object to in ridiculous claims that 90% of the republican party are bigots.  The Republican party definitely has a place for bigotry, but they must toe the fine line of keeping them included without alienating the other groups, like country club republicans, neo-cons, evangelicals, etc.  Trump has been much more aggressive in courting them with openly racist statements, and that is a big part of why so many of the other groups of republicans have such a hard time embracing Trump (and some have refused to do so). 

[BloodRider]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That said, what makes Trump's comment particularity unsettling is what you laid out in the third paragraph. When you combine it with everything else he's been saying, the demonizing of the other, that the system is rigged and that it's the end of the country if he loses, all fosters an environment where someone from that small minority could act in a horrific way, should Trump lose the election. 

The problem here is that so far we already have numerous instances of this happening under Obama already.  All precisely because these (luckily relatively minor) figures in the party are already stirring the pot.  Beyond actual shootings, we have Alex Jones wackadoodle shit like the nutbars trying to stop Jade Helm, or stop Shahira Law (by shooting up a Mosque).  In the US, right wing terrorism is more prevalent than any other sort, and until Orlando it was more deadly.  

The good news is - so far - that they have been really uncoordinated.  But what's the bet Trump is gonna find a way to exploit the organization he has built.