Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

2016 Primaries and political debates

Election Primaries 2016

  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#81 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 15 March 2016 - 08:08 AM

I'd just like to point out that no matter what happens today, 60% of Republican voters in Ohio will get zero representation at their national convention. Winner-take-all needs to die. #Proportional

#82 Mooky

Mooky

    Self-REbanned

  • Islander
  • 8,673 posts

Posted 26 March 2016 - 11:52 PM

Am I the only Mississippian on the Island?  I just did a Firefox (CTRL + F) search on all 5 pages of this thread for the word "Mississippi"...nuthin'.

Anyway, when I read Trump won in the Mississippi primary, I had to tweet the following:


Attached File  Twitter Cature 001.PNG   12.77K   0 downloads

[Reason for edit:  Hit ENTER by accident.]

Edited by Mooky, 27 March 2016 - 12:15 AM.


#83 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 28 March 2016 - 12:19 AM

I don't see Trump getting to 1,237 before the convention. He needs to win 57.4% of the remaining delegates (and probably even more than that because Cruz is running a far better political operation and there are already reports of him stealing delegates away from the incompetent Trump at county conventions). A lot of the most racist states have already voted. Trump will still get a big boost from the Northeast, which will allocate about 40% of the remaining delegates, but he's much weaker out West. Cruz will almost certainly win Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, the Dakotas and Montana. I also think he'll win Wisconsin and has a very good shot in California, though Kasich's potential to play the spoiler complicates both states.

Had so many evangelicals not chosen racism and authoritarianism over religion, Cruz likely would've won this race outright.

#84 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 09:50 PM

Well, crap. Don't come by in a month, miss a good discussion :(

Anyhow, only real point of argument I have is with this:

View Postcade, on 24 February 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

No, Research into this has consistently shown that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. This makes complete sense when you consider that the vast majority of them just come here for basic survival and to give their children a better life (there's a good movie on this issue by that title that I recommend, btw) and live in constant fear of being caught.

As someone who has has 13 1/2 years "boots on the ground" so to speak working uniformed patrol/accident investigation/DUI and traffic enforcement, I have to say this is very INCORRECT from what I've seen. In fact, to some extent its gotten quite worse.

Recent incident: Got a call of a Hit and Run (Traffic Collision) at a major intersection, and one driver fled around the corner and several blocks till his car crapped out. Victim followed and stood by for us. A secondary unit arrived before we did, but since we had it originally I decided to just take it. Anyhow, we were directed to the driver, whom was Hispanic and did't speak a lick of english. No biggie, neither does my mother in law, and my spanglish is good enough so we can get by. I go up to him and try to talk to him, and I can see two things. 1: He was quite drunk, and 2. He didn't like me very much. He very quickly squared up (i.e. he was going to fight), and seeing the situation was going to deteriorate, I hooked him up and ended the situation. But the entire time, it was "wero" this, "puto" that. Essentially, what pissed him off (I was told later by a spanish speaker) was that a white officer arrested him. For whatever reason, he didn't like whites and it pissed him off that it was a white guy who did it. As an epilogue, when I ran his info in the court database to find out when I could possibly get court on the incident, I found out that he skipped out on bail and now had a warrant in the system. He had no ID, no way to establish who he was, yet he was able to get released on his own recognizance (due to the crime only being a misdemeanor) and now he is in the wind, to do this again and possibly kill someone.

Now, this isn't anything new. However, what is new is the frequency in which incidents like this are happening. It used to be a few a year, but now, for at least the last 18 months or so its gotten to be something that occurs about once a week. More violent encounters, more intoxication, and more skipping out on bail.

I recognize that this isn't a scientific survey. It's only my own perspective. I also get that we are now getting a different type of immigrant (workers, vs. cartel/criminals a la the Mariel Boatlift - whereas before we got one type of immigrant (legit political refugees) we now may be getting something else (a huge influx of criminals that are being dumped on us). However, my own observations show that this argument that "they don't cause as many problems" isn't correct anymore.

(Also note, I am not using this as a defense of Trump, who is an absolute idiot when it comes to immigration issues IMO).

#85 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 10:08 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 09 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

LotS, why do you reserve all of your vitriol on this for Hillary Clinton when the two Secretaries of State who preceded her did exactly what she did - and their servers are under investigation, too. Surely it should be the same rhetoric - and indeed, the same fate - for all three. Right?

So do you expect that Colin Powell and Condi Rice are about to be indicted, too? (This despite the fact that it is NOT a criminal investigation.)

Or is it just that, in your mind, Republicans are allowed to do this thing but a Democrat can't?

As a relative Government Peon, I know several things about our agency email system:

1. Everything transmitted on it is official i.e. government business, and can't be deleted. ( And even if I did, the system automatically backs it up)
2. Can't mix personal and government stuff. We're even prohibited from routing an automatic forwarding to our personal devices without official permission, and signing a bunch of forms. Doesn't matter that the forwarding would make everyone's lives easier, they don't care about that.

Why didn't Hillary get this, when she has higher clearance, and more time in service than I do? Its common sense sh*t.

Not only that, related activities has always gotten the smack down. I remember news story about a Navy serviceman who took a selfie on a ship and sent it to a girlfriend, who got drummed out because in the background just happened to have a computer with sensitive stuff on it. Plus, lets not forget about former Gen. Petraeus. They were getting ready to take away his fourth star retroactively a short time ago, until someone realized that if they did that, then they would HAVE to do something to Hillary (and everyone else) and quickly quashed that idea.

Its basic computer security. If she can't get that, then she shouldn't be President. Regardless on if its a crime or not (which I still think it is, but agree that there is no way in hell she will face charges).

#86 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:41 AM

This is not going to be a factor in the fall - you know that, right?

It's like "Fast + Furious" - red-meat for the conservative media bubble to keep them foaming at the mouth while in the background, their party collapses under the weight of its own propaganda - but for the reality based community, it's a just a bunch of noise. There's no there there... unlike, say, Trump's campaign manager getting arrested on Monday. For assaulting a woman.

Edited by BklnScott, 02 April 2016 - 08:54 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#87 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:58 AM

View Post243Skunk, on 01 April 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well, crap. Don't come by in a month, miss a good discussion :(

Anyhow, only real point of argument I have is with this:

View Postcade, on 24 February 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

No, Research into this has consistently shown that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. This makes complete sense when you consider that the vast majority of them just come here for basic survival and to give their children a better life (there's a good movie on this issue by that title that I recommend, btw) and live in constant fear of being caught.

As someone who has has 13 1/2 years "boots on the ground" so to speak working uniformed patrol/accident investigation/DUI and traffic enforcement, I have to say this is very INCORRECT from what I've seen. In fact, to some extent its gotten quite worse.

Recent incident: Got a call of a Hit and Run (Traffic Collision) at a major intersection, and one driver fled around the corner and several blocks till his car crapped out. Victim followed and stood by for us. A secondary unit arrived before we did, but since we had it originally I decided to just take it. Anyhow, we were directed to the driver, whom was Hispanic and did't speak a lick of english. No biggie, neither does my mother in law, and my spanglish is good enough so we can get by. I go up to him and try to talk to him, and I can see two things. 1: He was quite drunk, and 2. He didn't like me very much. He very quickly squared up (i.e. he was going to fight), and seeing the situation was going to deteriorate, I hooked him up and ended the situation. But the entire time, it was "wero" this, "puto" that. Essentially, what pissed him off (I was told later by a spanish speaker) was that a white officer arrested him. For whatever reason, he didn't like whites and it pissed him off that it was a white guy who did it. As an epilogue, when I ran his info in the court database to find out when I could possibly get court on the incident, I found out that he skipped out on bail and now had a warrant in the system. He had no ID, no way to establish who he was, yet he was able to get released on his own recognizance (due to the crime only being a misdemeanor) and now he is in the wind, to do this again and possibly kill someone.

Now, this isn't anything new. However, what is new is the frequency in which incidents like this are happening. It used to be a few a year, but now, for at least the last 18 months or so its gotten to be something that occurs about once a week. More violent encounters, more intoxication, and more skipping out on bail.

I recognize that this isn't a scientific survey. It's only my own perspective. I also get that we are now getting a different type of immigrant (workers, vs. cartel/criminals a la the Mariel Boatlift - whereas before we got one type of immigrant (legit political refugees) we now may be getting something else (a huge influx of criminals that are being dumped on us). However, my own observations show that this argument that "they don't cause as many problems" isn't correct anymore.

(Also note, I am not using this as a defense of Trump, who is an absolute idiot when it comes to immigration issues IMO).

You seem to know that the plural of anecdote is not data, which is good. Isn't it also true that one's professional encounters with a particular group will be colored by the nature of the profession much more than by the nature of the group?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#88 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:16 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 02 April 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

This is not going to be a factor in the fall - you know that, right?

It's like "Fast + Furious" - red-meat for the conservative media bubble to keep them foaming at the mouth while in the background, their party collapses under the weight of its own propaganda - but for the reality based community, it's a just a bunch of noise. There's no there there... unlike, say, Trump's campaign manager getting arrested on Monday. For assaulting a woman.

Maybe. Maybe not. Yahoo news article I saw (didn't read) said that the FBI asked the State Department to discontinue their investigation till the FBI investigation was done. From a prosecutorial (sp?) standpoint, you don't want two investigations going at the same time, as even minor differences in the conclusions can lead to problems later.

If the FBI didn't care or knew that it wasn't going to prosecute at this point, why tell the State Department to discontinue? I mean, they are fairly well along, and should be almost done at this point. They have whatever evidence they have, and should be only dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s at this point. It could be standard operating procedure, or it could mean something else.  

What's more, I will agree with Lord of the Sword on this: Cops (including the Feds) are incredibly lazy for the most part. What's more, they are Civil Service Protected (i.e. they have certain protections so that you can't just fire them if they start investigating something that higher ups don't like). If they felt that there wasn't anything there, why would they be wasting their time? They don't  have to worry about political fallout. They could just go through their good faith motions, announce that there isn't anything to prosecute, and they were dropping the issue. A perfect analogy is the Michael Brown / Ferguson PD Federal investigation. It was dropped pretty quick, wasn't it? Because the Feds decided that there wasn't anything there for them to do, so they dropped it. Yet, this Clinton thing is still here.

(and I hate Trump just as much as you do, and hope this is the end of him. Probably won't though)

View PostBklnScott, on 02 April 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

You seem to know that the plural of anecdote is not data, which is good. Isn't it also true that one's professional encounters with a particular group will be colored by the nature of the profession much more than by the nature of the group?

I live with my in laws (which mentioned above, only speak Spanish for the most part). I.E. I am married into a hispanic family. Get along great with them. They love me more than their own kid. Work partner is Hispanic. Get along great with non-assholes. And that was what this guy was. I also concede that there are non-hispanic assholes, and I have spectacular stories about those.

They guy was fine with everybody else, till I walked up to him. It was me (in particular) that he didn't like. There was also the whole skipping out on his court date also, which I don't think had anything to do with me, because I wasn't going to be there (it was just going to be a setting hearing).

I'm just observing that recently we are getting more and more of the *a$$h*le types. It could be just a general uptick of assholeishness in society (which I will concede is also happening). But when something goes from infrequent to frequent, there is something going on beyond what the numbers say.

#89 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 4,047 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 10:00 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 02 April 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

View Post243Skunk, on 01 April 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well, crap. Don't come by in a month, miss a good discussion :(

Anyhow, only real point of argument I have is with this:

View Postcade, on 24 February 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

No, Research into this has consistently shown that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. This makes complete sense when you consider that the vast majority of them just come here for basic survival and to give their children a better life (there's a good movie on this issue by that title that I recommend, btw) and live in constant fear of being caught.

As someone who has has 13 1/2 years "boots on the ground" so to speak working uniformed patrol/accident investigation/DUI and traffic enforcement, I have to say this is very INCORRECT from what I've seen. In fact, to some extent its gotten quite worse.

Recent incident: Got a call of a Hit and Run (Traffic Collision) at a major intersection, and one driver fled around the corner and several blocks till his car crapped out. Victim followed and stood by for us. A secondary unit arrived before we did, but since we had it originally I decided to just take it. Anyhow, we were directed to the driver, whom was Hispanic and did't speak a lick of english. No biggie, neither does my mother in law, and my spanglish is good enough so we can get by. I go up to him and try to talk to him, and I can see two things. 1: He was quite drunk, and 2. He didn't like me very much. He very quickly squared up (i.e. he was going to fight), and seeing the situation was going to deteriorate, I hooked him up and ended the situation. But the entire time, it was "wero" this, "puto" that. Essentially, what pissed him off (I was told later by a spanish speaker) was that a white officer arrested him. For whatever reason, he didn't like whites and it pissed him off that it was a white guy who did it. As an epilogue, when I ran his info in the court database to find out when I could possibly get court on the incident, I found out that he skipped out on bail and now had a warrant in the system. He had no ID, no way to establish who he was, yet he was able to get released on his own recognizance (due to the crime only being a misdemeanor) and now he is in the wind, to do this again and possibly kill someone.

Now, this isn't anything new. However, what is new is the frequency in which incidents like this are happening. It used to be a few a year, but now, for at least the last 18 months or so its gotten to be something that occurs about once a week. More violent encounters, more intoxication, and more skipping out on bail.

I recognize that this isn't a scientific survey. It's only my own perspective. I also get that we are now getting a different type of immigrant (workers, vs. cartel/criminals a la the Mariel Boatlift - whereas before we got one type of immigrant (legit political refugees) we now may be getting something else (a huge influx of criminals that are being dumped on us). However, my own observations show that this argument that "they don't cause as many problems" isn't correct anymore.

(Also note, I am not using this as a defense of Trump, who is an absolute idiot when it comes to immigration issues IMO).

You seem to know that the plural of anecdote is not data, which is good. Isn't it also true that one's professional encounters with a particular group will be colored by the nature of the profession much more than by the nature of the group?

You also can't go completely by numbers, either.  Numbers virtually never tell the whole story.  Too many people throw numbers into the mix without actually looking at why those numbers could be the way they are.

#90 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:54 AM

Quote

Maybe. Maybe not. Yahoo news article I saw (didn't read) said that the FBI asked the State Department to discontinue their investigation till the FBI investigation was done.


I did read it. State asked FBI for advice on what to do about its own investigation (not into Hillary - into the private servers used by the last THREE secretaries of state) given that there is also a counterpart FBI investigation. FBI said - literally - do what you'd ordinarily do. State said, "Ordinarily, we'd just discontinue." FBI said, "Go for it. This is a non story insofar as the general is concerned. When will people learn the difference between a real scandal and a Fox News/Right Wing Blogosphere Scandallero?

Also - not to take this into completely abstract territory - but you CAN go by numbers, not just in politics. But everywhere. Trust in the maths. Pilots fly by numbers. Rocket scientists at JPL use numbers to hit a target millions of miles away. Nate Silver has used numbers to predict the outcomes of the past FOUR election cycles - this one being the fifth - and his record is pretty spectacular.

When you distrust numbers, you end up being Turd Blossom on Fox News on Election Night 2012. Don't be Turd Blossom.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#91 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 4,047 posts

Posted 03 April 2016 - 12:55 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 03 April 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Quote

Maybe. Maybe not. Yahoo news article I saw (didn't read) said that the FBI asked the State Department to discontinue their investigation till the FBI investigation was done.


I did read it. State asked FBI for advice on what to do about its own investigation (not into Hillary - into the private servers used by the last THREE secretaries of state) given that there is also a counterpart FBI investigation. FBI said - literally - do what you'd ordinarily do. State said, "Ordinarily, we'd just discontinue." FBI said, "Go for it. This is a non story insofar as the general is concerned. When will people learn the difference between a real scandal and a Fox News/Right Wing Blogosphere Scandallero?

Also - not to take this into completely abstract territory - but you CAN go by numbers, not just in politics. But everywhere. Trust in the maths. Pilots fly by numbers. Rocket scientists at JPL use numbers to hit a target millions of miles away. Nate Silver has used numbers to predict the outcomes of the past FOUR election cycles - this one being the fifth - and his record is pretty spectacular.

When you distrust numbers, you end up being Turd Blossom on Fox News on Election Night 2012. Don't be Turd Blossom.

Okay, first of all, the examples you list, such as JPL scientists, are people who check and recheck those numbers MANY times before they go with a mission or post results.  Second, numbers do not always tell the full story because there are factors that can always make numbers go a certain way.

Example... my store vs. another store of the same company in the same region that is only 4 miles down the road.  We get some frozen organic blueberries on sale at a great price.  My store does, say $5,000 while the other $10,000.  Now, at first glance it appears my store wasn't merchandising properly.  But the fact is my store is smaller than the other one... plus, the other has a large front endcap that can be used for frozen displays.  I don't have that.  Add to that the demographics of the two stores are a little different, and you start to see WHY those numbers look the way they do.

People who make blanket statements based on numbers only are lemmings.

#92 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 03 April 2016 - 04:15 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 03 April 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I did read it. State asked FBI for advice on what to do about its own investigation (not into Hillary - into the private servers used by the last THREE secretaries of state) given that there is also a counterpart FBI investigation. FBI said - literally - do what you'd ordinarily do. State said, "Ordinarily, we'd just discontinue." FBI said, "Go for it. This is a non story insofar as the general is concerned. When will people learn the difference between a real scandal and a Fox News/Right Wing Blogosphere Scandallero?

As I see it, the only way for it to turn into a real scandal is if the FBI submits its investigation, and the DOJ shitcans it, and it is somehow leaked out what the results are and its not favorable to Hillary. Otherwise, your right - its just the lib 46% vs. the conservative 46% using the topic to bash each other on.

And I would be shocked if the DOJ issues an indictment, one way or another.

Quote

Also - not to take this into completely abstract territory - but you CAN go by numbers, not just in politics. But everywhere. Trust in the maths. Pilots fly by numbers. Rocket scientists at JPL use numbers to hit a target millions of miles away. Nate Silver has used numbers to predict the outcomes of the past FOUR election cycles - this one being the fifth - and his record is pretty spectacular.

When you distrust numbers, you end up being Turd Blossom on Fox News on Election Night 2012. Don't be Turd Blossom.

Hard numbers are one thing. Statistics are another, and can be manipulated. Hence, district gerrymandering and whatnot.

#93 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 4,047 posts

Posted 03 April 2016 - 06:31 PM

View Post243Skunk, on 03 April 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 03 April 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I did read it. State asked FBI for advice on what to do about its own investigation (not into Hillary - into the private servers used by the last THREE secretaries of state) given that there is also a counterpart FBI investigation. FBI said - literally - do what you'd ordinarily do. State said, "Ordinarily, we'd just discontinue." FBI said, "Go for it. This is a non story insofar as the general is concerned. When will people learn the difference between a real scandal and a Fox News/Right Wing Blogosphere Scandallero?

As I see it, the only way for it to turn into a real scandal is if the FBI submits its investigation, and the DOJ shitcans it, and it is somehow leaked out what the results are and its not favorable to Hillary. Otherwise, your right - its just the lib 46% vs. the conservative 46% using the topic to bash each other on.

And I would be shocked if the DOJ issues an indictment, one way or another.

Quote

Also - not to take this into completely abstract territory - but you CAN go by numbers, not just in politics. But everywhere. Trust in the maths. Pilots fly by numbers. Rocket scientists at JPL use numbers to hit a target millions of miles away. Nate Silver has used numbers to predict the outcomes of the past FOUR election cycles - this one being the fifth - and his record is pretty spectacular.

When you distrust numbers, you end up being Turd Blossom on Fox News on Election Night 2012. Don't be Turd Blossom.

Hard numbers are one thing. Statistics are another, and can be manipulated. Hence, district gerrymandering and whatnot.

That was the point I was trying to make about numbers, but you said it better.  Thanks.

#94 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 09:17 PM

243Skunk, I value your perspective but as you said, it's only your own and citing anecdotal evidence isn't a rational argument against the kind of detailed research studies I cited. They aren't definitive, because it's a difficult subject to research, so you could be right but the weight of evidence points to undocumented immigrants being less likely to commit crimes and especially less likely to commit violent crimes.

--

Going back to the primaries, the trend continues, with Trump losing badly in yet another state that has relatively little racial polarization. In bordering Michigan, where there's a lot of racism, he won handily. Two weeks ago we saw how he dominated in Arizona (hotbed of racism) and got killed in Utah, where whites dominate and there's far less racial polarization. Yes, Trump was hurt in Utah by it being a caucus and also by Romney's sway with Mormons but those factors alone don't explain a 67-point swing.

Trump's chances have plummeted, going from 78% to 43% in about a week at predictwise.com . Cruz should probably be favored over him now.

#95 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 09:35 AM

View PostFarscapeOne, on 03 April 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

View Post243Skunk, on 03 April 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 03 April 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

When you distrust numbers, you end up being Turd Blossom on Fox News on Election Night 2012. Don't be Turd Blossom.

Hard numbers are one thing. Statistics are another, and can be manipulated. Hence, district gerrymandering and whatnot.

That was the point I was trying to make about numbers, but you said it better.  Thanks.

All data can be manipulated, including numbers, but not all data can be manipulated equally. I tend to think that numbers lie less readily than, say, an inspirational story - though in politics numbers can be less persuasive than an inspirational story.

The point is: numbers have to add up. That's as true for a complicated algorithm as it is for simple arithmetic. Other kinds of information don't have to tie back to reality in such concrete ways. How do we PROVE, for example, that all those congressional districts in red states got gerrymandered? Statistics. Because the bad math the Republicans used when they went on White Voter Safari eventually, inevitably, got visualized in map form - and the crazy geometry of these new districts revealed the fraud. Resulting in the last-minute redrawing of maps by court order in some places like North Carolina.

Nate Silver's record is what it is for a reason - because he trusts the math and at the end of the day the numbers add up. And Karl Rove's Election Night 2012 gaffe was what IT was for a reason, too - because he DIDN'T trust the numbers. It happens a lot. What do they say about new pilots? That the number who fly out of a cloud bank upside down is astonishing - because they distrust their instruments, which are telling the absolute truth?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#96 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 01:58 PM

Quote

The presidential candidate for the white nationalist American Freedom Party has resigned from the ticket, complaining that the party is committed to electing Donald Trump and toning down its “white genocide” message to attract Trump supporters. Internal emails show he’s right.

I’ve never had this happen,” said presidential contender and lifelong segregationist Bob Whitaker, in a statement emailed by his senior staffer to The Huffington Post on Friday. “I’ve been in campaigns for fifty years, and I’ve never seen anything as screwed up as this.” His campaign added that the party’s “continued focus on Trump’s campaign is impossible for Whitaker to work with.”

AFP is a minor political party established by racist Southern California skinheads, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In his presidential campaign, Whitaker has been open about his view that racial diversity is a code word for genocide against white people. But recently, his party has neglected him in order to back Trump, whose rise party leaders see as an opportunity to bring AFP into the mainstream.

Emails obtained by HuffPost show AFP directors working to moderate their message to appeal to a broader base.
“Let’s be a wee more diplomatic with the ms [mainstream] media,” wrote Tom Sunic, who has spoken at meetings sponsored by Klansmen, Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. “Instead of using the right word ‘white genocide’ let’s use  ‘physical, administrative removal of Americans of European extraction.’ Instead of ‘white nationalists’ let’s use ‘white advocates’ or ‘advocates of European heritage.’”

“I agree that ‘genocide’ is too strong,” wrote Jared Taylor, editor of the pseudo-academic journal, American Renaissance. “It sounds like people attacking us with machetes and pitchforks. I think simple ‘dispossession’ is better. Also white nationalism sounds pretty stern, I think white advocacy sounds less scary but says what we want to say.”

“If you say genocide, people roll their eyes,” added AFP director Kevin MacDonald. “It’s not a good label to use in a sound bite.”
The men were discussing outreach related to their recent promotion of a proposed Trump cabinet, which included conservative pundit Ann Coulter as secretary of homeland security and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as White House chief of staff.



Has there been any media coverage of the striking similarities in how Trump and Clinton perform geographically, and how obviously this relates to the racial demographics and attitudes in those states?

They've won or lost all the same states except for Michigan, Vermont, Hawaii, New Hampshire and the home states of Cruz and Kasich. They've both been decimated out West except for Arizona and Nevada, which have high numbers of Hispanics. They both performed best in the South, where Clinton benefited from her strong appeal to African-Americans, and Trump benefited from there being strong antipathy to African-Americans. Clinton also benefited from her southern connections, her religiosity, and her opponent being a northeastern self-proclaimed "democratic socialist," but what's really revealing is how well Trump performed across this same territory despite being a New Yorker who's the polar opposite of a family values candidate, up against a much more conservative southerner who's a poster boy for the religious right. Trump's support was virtually identical among evangelicals and non-evangelicals, ranging from +1 to -2 in every southern state that was exit-polled.

Certainly Trump was helped by Rubio still being in the race at that point, but the point is that it was Trump's strongest region and not Cruz's strongest, despite it overwhelmingly being his natural base. The South dumped him for a bigger racist from the North, and now the race turns to the northeast, where for many reasons that go without saying Cruz is in horrible position to use Trump's racism against him.

After this month the race will go back to territory that's very favorable for Cruz. I think Trump will be toast without California, and even if he wins it's largely only winner-take-all by congressional district. 13 delegates go to the statewide winner, while 159 go to the winner by congressional district, of which there are 53. Cruz will very likely pick off enough CDs to keep Trump well under 1237.

#97 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 09:01 AM

There's been a lot written and said about this but it's not like dominating headlines. What do you think it means?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#98 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 10:26 AM

I think it's mostly a matter of demographics. Clinton dominates over Bernie among minorities, especially black people. Trump dominates in communities with significant racial tension, which generally means a significant minority population.

#99 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 12:57 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 07 April 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

There's been a lot written and said about this but it's not like dominating headlines. What do you think it means?

Sorry I wasn't clear but I was saying just what Omega said below.

I don't think this should dominate headlines but I've seen no coverage of it at all, even after searching for it on google. Maybe there's been a lot on their similar state-by-state performance but I'm talking specifically about the huge racism problem it signifies, not just that Trump has a ton of racist supporters but that whites tend to be a lot more racist in states with high minority populations, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, since they are considered the greatest demographic threats. This goes straight back to what I posted here last month about the extremely strong inverse correlation between white support for Obama and Trump, and how in 2008 we even had Democratic primary voters admitting in exit polls that Obama's race was a negative factor in their vote.

I know I'm just stating the obvious to many of you but there are widespread efforts to deny or downplay the existence and/or implications of these racist voting patterns, even disturbingly among many white males in social media who claim to be liberal. It's part of this whole war on "PC culture," "social justice warriors" and "Black Lives Matter" being waged not just by the right but by parts of the supposed left that are very vocal online and have now taken to smearing the progressive movement as "the regressive left."

#100 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 09 April 2016 - 08:06 PM

Quote

http://www.newyorker...y-the-fix-is-in

More than three months before any ballots have been cast at the Republican convention, Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again consigliere, has delivered the campaign equivalent of a severed horse head to delegates who might consider denying Trump the nomination. Trump’s supporters will find you in your sleep, he merrily informed them this week. He did not mean it metaphorically.

“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.

Over the years, I’ve covered elections in Iraq, Iran, and Burma. Stone’s taunt is every bit as threatening as anything I heard in those places, which have far less experience than America with democracy. Such is the moment we currently inhabit.


By now, we know most of the chapters in Trump’s political playbook: the epithets for “low-energy” Jeb and Lyin’ Ted and Little Marco, and the bombshell provocations—about, say, a nuclear strike in Europe—as a way to draw attention away from unfavorable news and missteps. And, throughout, of course, the mockery of women. But as we approach the growing prospect of a contested convention, in which delegates can make game-time choices about whom they will support, it’s becoming clearer that Trump may seek to shape the outcome by using his most unwieldy weapon of all: the latent power of usually peaceful people.

<snip>

When we are exposed to the right energy, even those of us who are not inclined to cross the boundaries from politics to force will do things that we would ordinarily consider reprehensible. Stephen David Reicher, a sociologist and psychologist at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, who has studied soccer mobs and race riots, told Wired last month, “People don’t lose control, but they begin to act with collective values.” Recently, he has turned his attention to studying Trump’s crowds. “It’s not your individual fate that becomes important but the fate of the group.”

And therein lies the key to Trump’s ability to introduce menace into the convention: he does not need to call upon his supporters to do anything but protect their newfound sense of identity and purpose. Stone, the political operative and self-described practitioner of “dirty tricks”—a man who (again, no metaphor) has a tattoo of Nixon on his back—has mapped out the fantasy that they will offer to their people, to explain what happens if Trump falls short of the twelve hundred and thirty-seven delegates he needs to secure the nomination. “Either Trump will have twelve hundred and thirty-seven votes, in which case the party will try to throw out some of those delegates in a naked attempt to try to steal this from Donald Trump, or he will be just short of twelve hundred and thirty-seven, in which case many of his own delegates, or, I should say, people in his delegate seats, will abandon him on the second ballot,” Stone said Monday. The convention, he has already told Trump voters, is rigged against them.

“So the fix is in,” Stone said on Monday. “If Trump does not run the table on the rest of the primaries and the caucuses, we’re looking at a very, very narrow path in which the kingmakers go all out to cheat, to steal, and to snatch this nomination from the candidate who was overwhelmingly selected by the voters, which is why I have urged Trump supporters: come to Cleveland, march on Cleveland, join us in the Forest City.”

btw, that interview with Stone was conducted by a cult leader.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, Primaries, 2016

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users