US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Week]

22 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

But this is just wrong on every level. That Trump didnt disavow himself from real racists fast enough for you or in as harsh of terms as you would like wont change my or most other Republican's voter's priorities when it comes to voting. 

His priorities, actions, and language is all that is needed to appropriately identify him as a bigot. One cannot disavow from oneself.

There are no "real" racists or "fake" racists. That is softening the ground to excuse racist behavior that isn't explicitly violent, with hateful intent, etc. 

[Frog Eater]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

His priorities, actions, and language is all that is needed to appropriately identify him as a bigot. One cannot disavow from oneself.

There are no "real" racists or "fake" racists. That is softening the ground to excuse racist behavior that isn't explicitly violent, with hateful intent, etc. 

real racists is to delineate between KKK/White Supremacists and the half the country you would attempt to paint as racists 

[Morpheus]

13 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

If you supported Clinton with her warmongering policies, whose decisions as secretary of state caused the massive problems going on right now in Lybia and Syria, you are a warmonger. Accepting the warmongering because you wont be affected by it, doesnt speak well of you as a person. 

You do not get to redefine warmongering to make yourself comfortable in your choices. 

When Hillary runs a campaign with starting a war as the central pillar of her campaign and then is elected and follows through, I’ll have to accept that.

Enjoy your judges and child internment camps.

[Mexal]

32 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

But this is just wrong on every level. That Trump didnt disavow himself from real racists fast enough for you or in as harsh of terms as you would like wont change my or most other Republican's voter's priorities when it comes to voting. 

The beauty of this country is you can support racists or people who racists support if you want as long as they match your other priorities. That's ultimately your choice and one you get to live with if things escalate.

[Altherion]

48 minutes ago, S John said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens if 'the tape' ever comes out, the one where Trump supposedly drops the 'n' bomb on the apprentice set.  My gut feeling is it won't change shit.  People who support Trump will do the same thing they've been doing, which is hem and haw about how it was in the past and they don't really like the guy but, hey, policy.   

But, to me that's really the Rubicon of whether or not continued support of the guy can be fairly called racist across the board.  You get him on a recent (apprentice era) 'n' bomb, not something that happened in like 1981 or something, and that's where I think his supporters will need to evaluate whether or not any policy is worth blowing up race relations and setting us back another 40 years.

I don't think it will do much. Steve Bannon made an interesting point during a recent European tour:

Quote

“You fight for your country and they call you racist. But the days when those kind of insults work is over. The establishment media are the dogs of the system. Every day, we become stronger and they become weaker. Let them call you racists, xenophobes or whatever else, wear these like a medal.”

Of course, the context is somewhat different in Europe, but the idea at the heart of this strategy works on both sides of the Atlantic: the more widely such terms are used and the more broad the groups they are applied to, the weaker the terms become. In the past, a discovery like the one you describe would be enough for near-universal condemnation, but given that today people make claims of 25% of the country being racist (see the previous thread) and that Trump himself has been constantly called racist throughout both his campaign and his Presidency, most of his supporters will let it pass. He might have to apologize though (like he did with the "locker-room talk" tape).

[Martell Spy]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think it will do much. Steve Bannon made an interesting point during a recent European tour:

Of course, the context is somewhat different in Europe, but the idea at the heart of this strategy works on both sides of the Atlantic: the more widely such terms are used and the more broad the groups they are applied to, the weaker the terms become. In the past, a discovery like the one you describe would be enough for near-universal condemnation, but given that today people make claims of 25% of the country being racist (see the previous thread) and that Trump himself has been constantly called racist throughout both his campaign and his Presidency, most of his supporters will let it pass. He might have to apologize though (like he did with the "locker-room talk" tape).

Why apologize? If Bannon is right, R's should just double down over and over.

[Week]

30 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

real racists is to delineate between KKK/White Supremacists and the half the country you would attempt to paint as racists 

This is complete and utter tripe. 

This remark made at the same time that you make your "warmonger" false equivalence -- not a good look bruh.

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Why apologize? If Bannon is right, R's should just double down over and over.

Because there are limits: some things really are perceived to be *ist by the vast majority of the population. For example, the locker-room talk went against not just the recently broadened definition of what it means to be sexist, but against much older and practically universal norms. In most cases, doubling down is a good strategy, but sometimes it makes more sense to apologize.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I loved seeing Pawlenty lose, that felt really good

The Ellison thing is just weird and I'm not really comfortable with it.  I think Swanson running again would be nice, but is that even feasible at this point?

I’m not sure. I skimmed a few articles and didn’t see anything about a deadline to change the candidate. I’ll have to look at the SoS website later on. If he’s locked in, the DFL would have to run a write in campaign. What a mess.  

[Guy Kilmore]

10 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I’m not sure. I skimmed a few articles and didn’t see anything about a deadline to change the candidate. I’ll have to look at the SoS website later on. If he’s locked in, the DFL would have to run a write in campaign. What a mess.  

I thought they only let candidates change if there is a medical issue, but I could be wrong. 

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Because there are limits: some things really are perceived to be *ist by the vast majority of the population. For example, the locker-room talk went against not just the recently broadened definition of what it means to be sexist, but against much older and practically universal norms. In most cases, doubling down is a good strategy, but sometimes it makes more sense to apologize.

No there are no limits if Bannon is right. Acting racist will cause liberals to call you racist. At which point the word stops having power. R's should stop kidding around and bust out tiki torches, thus winning every election.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Fuck yeah! WhooooOOooooo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/mulvaney-military-lending.html

... said no sensible person.  

FOR THE PEOPLES!!!!

[James Arryn]

33 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think it will do much. Steve Bannon made an interesting point during a recent European tour:

Of course, the context is somewhat different in Europe, but the idea at the heart of this strategy works on both sides of the Atlantic: the more widely such terms are used and the more broad the groups they are applied to, the weaker the terms become. In the past, a discovery like the one you describe would be enough for near-universal condemnation, but given that today people make claims of 25% of the country being racist (see the previous thread) and that Trump himself has been constantly called racist throughout both his campaign and his Presidency, most of his supporters will let it pass. He might have to apologize though (like he did with the "locker-room talk" tape).

So the Nazis and the KKK, who are not bothered by the word ‘racist’ in the least, are...more racist? Less racist? 

Your insistence on painting racism as a thing people call other people rather than a thing people are is so consistent I’m halfway convinced you believe your own bullshit. More likely you’re one of those ‘everyone is racist, I’m just tired of the liberals only allowing one side to express it’ types.

But wait, are you white? If you are you should recuse yourself from judging any situation involving white people. (...is something only a racist President would say, as opposed to a President ‘accused’ of racism.)

[Bonnot OG]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/watch-trump-supporter-beat-social-distortion-singer-punk-show-protests-anti-trump-rant/

A conservative bigot (they all are), Trump supporter, got punched in the face at a punk show for being an entitled scumbag, by a guy that grew up playing punk rock in the late 70/s early 80s in Orange County California, where cops would try to use your head as a polo ball.

[Red Hermit]

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

But this is just wrong on every level. That Trump didnt disavow himself from real racists fast enough for you or in as harsh of terms as you would like wont change my or most other Republican's voter's priorities when it comes to voting. 

Trump's pandering to birthers in the years before he ran for president shows me he doesn't have a problem with racism, so he is probably racist himself to some extent.  During the primaries he also "joked" about Marco Rubio's and Ted Cruz's birth certificates.  Pretty obvious who those "jokes" were meant to get a chuckle out of.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I thought they only let candidates change if there is a medical issue, but I could be wrong. 

Looks like you’re right. Key sections are at the bottom of page 101 and top of page 102:

Quote

204B.13 VACANCY IN NOMINATION; PARTISAN OFFICE. Subdivision 1. Partisan office. (a) A vacancy in nomination for a partisan office must be filled in the manner provided by this section. A vacancy in nomination exists for a partisan office when a major political party candidate who has been nominated in accordance with section 204D.03, subdivision 3, or 204D.10, subdivision 1: (1) dies; (2) withdraws by filing an affidavit of withdrawal, as provided in paragraph (b), at least one day prior to the general election with the same official who received the affidavit of candidacy; or (3) is determined to be ineligible to hold the office the candidate is seeking, pursuant to a court order issued under section 204B.44. (b) An affidavit of withdrawal filed under paragraph (a), clause (2), must state that the candidate has been diagnosed with a catastrophic illness that will permanently and continuously incapacitate the candidate and prevent the candidate from performing the duties of the office sought, if elected. The affidavit must be accompanied by a certificate verifying the candidate’s illness meets the requirements of this paragraph, signed 2018 MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS 102 by at least two licensed physicians. The affidavit and certificate may be filed by the candidate or the candidate’s legal guardian. Subd. 2. Partisan office; nomination by party; special election. (a) Except as provided in subdivision 5, a major political party may fill a vacancy in nomination of that party’s candidate as defined in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1), (2), or (3), by filing one nomination certificate with the same official who received the affidavits of candidacy for that office. 

https://www.sos.state.mn.us/media/2304/minnesota-election-laws-statutes-and-rules.pdf

[Guy Kilmore]

Just now, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Looks like you’re right. Key sections are at the bottom of page 101 and top of page 102:

https://www.sos.state.mn.us/media/2304/minnesota-election-laws-statutes-and-rules.pdf

Yep, so this race got real interesting in a nauseating sort of way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, Trump thinks Soldiers who were "real patriots" would refuse the 2.6% pay raise that's coming for them in 2019.  What an asshat:

http://washingtonsources.org/trump-if-soldiers-were-real-patriots-they-wouldnt-take-a-pay-raise/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, S John said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens if 'the tape' ever comes out, the one where Trump supposedly drops the 'n' bomb on the apprentice set.  My gut feeling is it won't change shit.  People who support Trump will do the same thing they've been doing, which is hem and haw about how it was in the past and they don't really like the guy but, hey, policy.   

I sincerely doubt that he would lose much support, at least at the ballot box. The Paul Ryans of the world would come out and condemn his language, but ultimately not that much would change. However, I do think it would increase the turnout against Trump, so in effect it would greatly damage his chances of being reelected.

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The conservative playbook (which they probably already have ready) will be:

1) President Obama used the word, (yes, maybe once, and in context, but by the time you get to that nuance half your audience has tuned out)

2) Black people and rappers use it all the time (also somewhat true, but the use of slurs 'in-group' and 'out-of-group' requires some nuance, and again, by that time even more of the audience is lost

3) Tax cuts, booming economy, Gorscuch etc....more of a play of pragmatism towards the base who may be feeling a bit queasy to bring them back into the fold

I think I am now jaded enough that I feel nothing will make a difference to his numbers.

 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

You forgot "the tape is fake, this is all a conspiracy.  Who are you going to trust, Trump or the lying media?"  Deepfakes have gotten dramatically better even since October 2016.  At the moment experts can probably tell if it were fake or not, but since when has this White House cared about experts?

 

You both left out the finishing move: I spoke to God and he forgave me, and now I am a changed man with Jesus in my heart.

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

The whole thing is bizarre. I suspect the DFL will try and force him out and just have Swanson run again.

It was also a delight to see Pawlenty lose.

You’re right to say that they’ll probably lose some governorships and state legislatures in the near future, but they should be able to hold a majority of them for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the projections I’ve seen for the next few decades indicate that the population will continue to concentrate in urban hubs, and in fewer states, which should mean that conservatives will control the smaller states, so repealing the 17^th Amendment would be beneficial for the GOP.

yeah, unfortunately the only recourse to the vile provisions of our constitution that counts a rural vote a thousand times and an urban vote once is that all the big states have to split up, three Ohios, ten californias, the state of Manhattan, the state of Long Island. etc etc etc. 

of course this could lead to the legendary "mine shaft gap!" scenario, wherein rural areas split their rural states in reaction to big state splits because the rural states want to maintain their easy living (off all the extra money they get they don't earn that urban areas are forced to waste on them) and dictatorial grip on power. 

But eventually the splitting will come to a natural state of equilibrium, once every state has only three people residing in it, we should be able to finally discern the common ground of holy bipartisanship and realize we all want mostly the same things and finally get some policy shit accomplished. Kum Ba Yah, bitches.