The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[LaCroix]

I'm still stunned by somebody with the name Suhayda is leading a nazi party...

[Thanas]

Isn't it an iranian name? If so, I can see the appeal.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Isn't it an iranian name? If so, I can see the appeal.

He's a US citizen. Born in Michigan, so I can see the appeal as well.

[Elheru Aran]

I thought it was Japanese, personally.

But whatever ethnicity he is seems slightly irrelevant considering the fact that he's a, you know, fucking Nazi. In this goddamn day and age.

I mean, just... What the fuck. The Klan is one thing, that's good ol' boy homebrew racism, but it takes a particularly deep streak of gall to stand up boldly wearing a shirt that says 'Hitler Was Right'.

And he thinks the election of Donald Trump will be a good thing for him and his movement. I don't know about you, but that doesn't say anything good about Donald Trump. (EDIT: Not that there was anything good to say, of course)

[The Romulan Republic]

I know the fivethirtyeight nowcast isn't terribly reliable, but damn, that map is a thing of beauty.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ecast/#now

South Carolina, fucking South Carolina leaning blue, Missouri looks like then next in line to flip. Georgia, North Carolina, and to a lesser extent Arizona fairly solidly blue.

4.6% chance for Trump to win if the election were held today.

But let's not get complacent. I don't want to see low turnout because voters think we've got this in the bag. I want not a narrow win, but a landslide to end all landslides. I want to see the voters utterly repudiate Trump's evil. I want to see us flip the House, gerrymandering be damned. I want their to be no doubt that Clinton won fair and square, because Trump will try to claim that she cheated. I want the Republican Party defeated so badly that it never recovers.

Edit: It should be noted that even fivethirtyeight's most pessimistic forecasting model gives the Donald only a 21.3% chance of winning, and puts NC as leaning Democrat.

[Flagg]

Isn't it an iranian name? If so, I can see the appeal.

Yeah, I'm sure the Nazzies managed to contort themselves into making Persians Aryan somehow.

[Elheru Aran]

Isn't it an iranian name? If so, I can see the appeal.

Yeah, I'm sure the Nazzies managed to contort themselves into making Persians Aryan somehow.

If it wasn't Persians, it was various Middle Easterners and Indians and what not. Generally if someone was useful to them, they'd suddenly decide they had an Aryan ancestor and/or give them 'honorary Aryan' status which IIRC they extended to the entire nation of Japan. Some such bullshit.

[Crown]

Addressed in reply to Aly.

You did no such thing. Please provide evidence that the DNC was suppressing the vote, as the phrase "could have found more ways to suppress the vote" implies.

You fucking deluded moron, you actually quote me earlier where I make it clear I'm mocking your arbitrary 'if we discount X that happened, and totally pretend nothing else changes except in my favour than the result would have been better!' argument. Yes, if we pretend the caucuses didn't happen and limit the voting to Hillary's family it would have been an amazing victory for her. Well argued.

Trump is appealing more to them than Romney was, and Hillary less than Obama.

This is not the case. Per the 2012 exit polling, Mitt Romney won white voters by 27 points. Per the Crosstabs on CNN's most recent poll (Pg. 21,Q1), Trump leads Clinton by 14 points among whites. That's nearly half of Romney's number. Even factoring in the Margin of Error, Trump is doing worse in this poll than Romney did in the 2012 exit polling.

You're wrong about the exit polls; Romney won the white vote by 20 points not 27 (you read the white male vote figure), but your overall point stands. Conceded.

That is a 60 odd page document with no table of contents or index, cite page and table/figure item which demonstrates her ratings among middle-class whites.

Page 21, Q3 shows two proxies for white middle class voters. She leads among respondents making more than 50k/annually by 17 points. She leads college graduate respondents by a 10 point margin. So it's not an 18 point lead, but a 17 point lead. Mea culpa.

Well fuck me dead. Conceded.

Trump won with a minority vote because there was a actual 'true believer' that the Evangelicals could vote for in the primary. You understand that my argument that there is a widespread anti-establishment feeling going on in this election isn't negated by it not holding true across all voting demographics all the time, right?

"A" true believer? Which one? Ben Carson? Mike Huckabee? Ted Cruz? Rick Santorum? Which one was the "true believer"? My point is that Trump won with a minority of the vote because there were 17 candidates running, all of whom were taking up different factions, and none of whom had Trump's ability to appeal to a little bit of every faction. It's impossible to say in retrospect, but I suspect that Trump would not have been able to win the Primary if there were 5 candidates, rather than 17.

Ted Cruz gets that honour as last man standing. But Trump would've won against that line up, any line up of those Republicans. They literally had no avenue to attack him on.

And my argument doesn't "negate" yours in the sense that I've disproved it. I'm putting forth evidence for why your argument, that there is widespread anti-establishment feeling going on in this election, is rather flawed. You've put forth zero evidence to support any of your assertions.

The Republican nomination was won by a non-establishment demagogue and the Democrat 'inevitable' nominee was challenged by the longest serving independent in US Congress history who started off with 2% of the Democratic vote when he announced (IIRC). Gee, I don't know where I come up with these wild theories.

The article quoted showed that when voters were 'made of aware' of who DWS was her lead plummeted right? You need money and attention at getting an incumbent out. There is no way you can pretend having a 11% to 15% approval rating and getting re-elected cycle on cycle isn't an indictment on how hard it is to mount an voting insurgency.

That 11-15% approval rating is for Congress as a whole, not for individual members. Local representatives are usually viewed more favorably than Congress as a whole, which helps contribute to their high re-election rate. My own Representative will have absolutely no difficulty getting re-elected this year, even if she didn't sit in an overwhelmingly Democratic seat, because she's well-liked.

I'm demonstrating that there really isn't much evidence that the American voters are more anti-establishment than usual. We hear that voters are pissed off and angry at the beltway insiders literally every election, and it isn't any more true now that Trump's managed to con his way into the Republican nomination.

With a 2014 Pew article? Where Congress was sitting at 28% favourable rating (with a 40%ish approval rating for your local Congressperson for Democrats and Republicans). But the 2016 data shows that Congress is at a below 28% favourability (the article doesn't give it more clearly than that other than 84% being 'angry at Congress' so we could deduce 16% approval rating, but meh) rating but only 20% of Republicans approve of their local Congressperson. Which is I'm sure you'd agree not a trivial difference from the 2014 data.

You also sidestepped the issue of how much money it takes to run against in incumbent though.

It's pretty self explanatory if you clicked on the link. But if you prefer you can compare David Cameron's steady 44% before Brexit and how that turned out.

I did not click the link because it was such a non-sequitor, and it remains so. Who gives a fuck about Cameron's approval prior to Brexit? There are lots of reasons to think that Brexit and the 2016 election are fundamentally different. There are very few reasons to think that they're similar.

As I said; he's a gifted politician. The fact that he has imprisoned more whistle blowers then all other Presidents before him combined and that shit doesn't stick to him at all is very impressive, but that's not an argument as to the country's mood in this election. Rather it is in argument to how impressive he is at being likeable.

Are you saying that the DNC giving money to Hillary so that she could run attack adds against Bernie didn't cost him a single fucking vote? That's your stance. Interesting.

I thought we were talking about collusion as shown in the DNC emails, not her joint fundraising efforts?

You don't define the DNC giving money to one candidate to use against another candidate during the primaries as collusion?

In any event, I answered your question and now you answer mine. Do you have any evidence that the collusion (really shit-talking) from the DNC's emails cost Bernie a single vote? For that matter, do you have any evidence that the bullshit ads from Correct the Record or any of the other weaksauce superPACs cost him a single vote?

Not that you want no, not a single shred.

The only thing I have is the fact they funnelled money into one candidate's coffers to use against another and they (and I'm sure this wasn't for nefarious purposes) reduced the number of debates from 26 in the 2008 Democratic Primary to 6 in the 2016. Nothing at all to do with the fact that the more the electorate heard Sanders speak, the high he rose in the polls, I'm sure.

And also the fact that the CFO of the DNC was running ideas about how to attack and discredit Sanders on his atheism; but hey, just low level staffers shit talking right?

Pay attention, because I'm about to use hyperbole and I don't feel you have the mental capacity to notice it when it happens; the DNC did everything short of getting the dead to vote in the primaries to make sure the 'correct' candidate won. They got lucky in 2008 when Obama talked a good talk but pretty much went normal corporatist mode after election, they weren't going to make that same mistake again this time around.

You're creating a series of narratives about this election without a shred of evidence to support it. I have provided abundant evidence to support my arguments, most of which you've ignored.

The DNC took donations to the DNC and funnelled it exclusively to Hillary before a single vote was cast. This isn't a narrative, it's a done fact.

You're making up a narrative about the election that is not supported by a single shred of evidence. You are apparently unable to read polls and are ignorant about how presidential elections work.

That isn't a rebuttal, you just repeated yourself.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm still stunned by somebody with the name Suhayda is leading a nazi party...

Isn't it an iranian name? If so, I can see the appeal.

I thought it was Japanese, personally.

Regarding the surname Suhayda, I did a little quick Googling. This ancestry site (and this one) claim it is of Hungarian origin. Though I also found other cites claiming Austrian and Indonesian heritage. Regardless, the search sites all seem to concur that it is almost exclusively used in America. Which leads me to believe it is an Ellis Island bastardization of a European surname, thus making it so difficult to conclusively determine its ethnicity.

Again, not that it matters, because he's a Nazi, but I was curious to look into it.

[Elheru Aran]

In many ways Austria and Hungary are nearly one and the same... there was quite a bit of cross-cultural pollination going there, so it's equally possible that an Iranian family with that name passed through the Ottoman Empire, settled in Hungary, some descendant of theirs became Austrian, then a descendant of *that* family emigrated to Indonesia during the colonial period

Silliness aside, the Nazis wouldn't be the first people to be hypocritical about their own origins, nor will they be the last.

[LaCroix]

Tell me about that - born in Austria to a Austrian-Hungarian couple, and now emigrated to Hungary...

It is a Hungarian name, indeed - mostly in central Hungary, to be precise, (as far as I know). I know there are documents dating back to the early 1800's with that name. Don't know the meaning - could be a creative interpretation of a turk name, for it doesn't feel "Hungarian" to me.

Still, I'd expect a leader to have a proper 'arian' name....

[Kingmaker]

Silliness aside, the Nazis wouldn't be the first people to be hypocritical about their own origins, nor will they be the last.

What's hypocritical about it? Hard to get more Aryan than the Iranians. They ought to be applauded* for adhering to their principles in the face of overwhelming public pressure to not be Nazis.


*from a safe distance. You don't want any of that getting on you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump suggests that 2nd. Amendment may be the only way to stop Clinton from appointing Supreme Court Justices:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/t ... uns-226833

Donald Trump on Tuesday said "the Second Amendment" may be the only way to stop Hillary Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she wins the presidential election in November.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said, in what appeared to be a joke. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”


The reference to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, could be interpreted as a joke about using violence to stop Clinton or her judicial picks.

Trump was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, where he repeated his regular claim that Clinton intends to “abolish” the Second Amendment, presumably by appointing liberal justices to the Supreme Court. But Trump punctuated that line with an aside, suggesting that Second Amendment supporters might be in a position to stop her even if she’s elected.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton did not take any questions after her event in Miami on Tuesday, but reached for comment, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook condemned the comments. "This is simple—what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," he said in a statement.

Following Trump's remark, the main super PAC supporting her, Priorities USA Action, immediately circulated the clip with the subject line, "Donald Trump Just Suggested That Someone Shoot Hillary Clinton."

Gabriel Debenedetti contributed to this report.

Fuck you, you Nazi shit.

[Omega18]

Trump suggests that 2nd. Amendment may be the only way to stop Clinton from appointing Supreme Court Justices:

Hey, to to be fair Trump may merely be suggesting assassinating Supreme Court Justices after they are appointed.

(Of course this may simply be a matter of Trump providing multiple options for his followers...)

[Borgholio]

Trump is just bringing up a vague idea and allowing his minions to run with it and work out the details (without bothering to stop them at all). It's how he's always done things.

[Elheru Aran]

Wouldn't be surprised at all if he's running off a vague memory of Sarah Palin doing exactly the same thing a few years ago. Got the usual 'oorah' from the gun-heads and... that's about it.

[Patroklos]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

How is it that I knew, the moment I saw your name appear, that you would once more be dribbling out apologism for Trump?

We all know what Trump and others like him imply with comments like this.

Stopping Clinton by voting would be an option for all opponents of hers', yet he specifies an option only open to the Second Amendment crowd.

Moreover, he specified that he was talking about what could stop Clinton from appointing Justices if she has won the election, not how she could lose the election. Read the fucking quote.

Of course, their is a legal means for blocking Supreme Court Justice appointments- the Senate. But that wouldn't fit Trump's fear mongering and incitement.

You are now engaging in apologism for the incitement of politically motivated murder.

[Mr Bean]

Congratulations Donald Trump for once again toeing that line oh so well between saying something utterly irredeemable and saying something much less bad. He said both in essence hey would you kindly use your second amendment rights on Secretary Clinton and hey NRA if you sit this election out Hillary is going to destroy everything you hold dear.

It's a favorite tactic in the south to use those infamous dog whistle phrases to indicate things to your supporters in the know but still seem fine to the general public (Witness the history of the word "Urban"). A reasonable person would hear this and say hey didn't Trump just call on some nutjob to shoot Clinton?

Because it sounds reasonable, that sounds like exactly what he just said. And it might mean exactly that, but he's got an easy out. When they ask what did you mean by that Trump can say the NRA.

Behold as the news cycle once again swirls around the master manipulator of the media.

*Edit and Congratulations Donald Trump for once again getting RR worked up into a huff as he falls for Trump media line number 71 for the 71nd time. It could be less I don't count the number of time Trump says something inflammatory and RR gets worked up about the wrong part of it because Romulan Republic at the end of the day believes Trump is a 100% honest man and not full of shit.

[Patroklos]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

How is it that I knew, the moment I saw your name appear, that you would once more be dribbling out apologism for Trump?

The fact that you interpret the above as apologism is the problem. It has nothing to do with apologism. Rather, it is a lifeline to you as you swirl around the whirlpool of hysteria, circling the drain of lunacy.

There is no reasonable way to interpret it as you have. In fact the very article you quote talks out how it "can" be interpreted that way while obviously laughing at the readers who will. The author knows that hysterical idiots such as yourself, not satisfied with the so many legitimate policy reasons to be against trump, will latch onto such clickbait. That's how they get paid.

You are a representative of this elections lowest common denominator TRR. Meanwhile the only people throwing molotov cocktails and pelting the opposition bloody with bottles and rocks continues to be the left. You know, ACTUAL violence as opposed to imagined rhetoric violence through the willfull ignorance by listeners/readers (that would be you).

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

How is it that I knew, the moment I saw your name appear, that you would once more be dribbling out apologism for Trump?

The fact that you interpret the above as apologism is the problem. It has nothing to do with apologism. Rather, it is a lifeline to you as you swirl around the whirlpool of hysteria, circling the drain of lunacy.

Its not hysteria. Its anger and contempt. Learn the difference, asshole.

And yes, you are guilty of apologism, for the reasons I stated.

There is no reasonable way to interpret it as you have.

Funny how everyone else seems to acknowledge that it can be interpreted in that manner. You're the only exception here.

It couldn't possibly be because you're a habitual apologist for the far Right, could it?

In fact the very article you quote talks out how it "can" be interpreted that way while obviously laughing at the readers who will. The author knows that hysterical idiots such as yourself, not satisfied with the so many legitimate policy reasons to be against trump, will latch onto such clickbait. That's how they get paid.

It can easily be interrupted that way. And that's the problem. It is an irresponsible comment that will be interpreted that way by those who might act accordingly on it, and Trump either knows it, or is too stupid to know or care.

You are a representative of this elections lowest common denominator TRR.

Almost your entire response is personal insults. Much like the Donald.

Meanwhile the only people throwing molotov cocktails and pelting the opposition bloody with bottles and rocks continues to be the left. You know, ACTUAL violence as opposed to imagined rhetoric violence through the willfull ignorance by listeners/readers (that would be you).

Lie.

Source for molotov cocktails?

Even if that is verified, suggesting that all the violence is coming from the Left is flat-out false, a generic and dishonest Right wing talking point that seeks to deflect blame for their own actions by attacking others. Their are numerous documented cases of violence from the far Right and Trump supporters in particular.

Also, their is a very significant difference between violence on the Left and violence on the Right. Both are, of course, deplorable, but only the latter is done with the incitement and open sympathy of the candidate.

[Flagg]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

Dude, he pretty much said the only way to stop Clinton was using the second amendment. There's no way to read that without coming to the conclusion that he was wink wink nudge nudging the crowd about political assassination.

That's because Donnie Douchbag is a stupid bomb-thrower who doesn't seem to realize or care that the bombs he throws may inspire some dickless loner.

The funny incredibly sad thing is that he probably didn't even realize he was doing it because he's a clueless fake millionaire empty suit who's age matches his IQ

[General Zod]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

Dude, he pretty much said the only way to stop Clinton was using the second amendment. There's no way to read that without coming to the conclusion that he was wink wink nudge nudging the crowd about political assassination.

That's because Donnie Douchbag is a stupid bomb-thrower who doesn't seem to realize or care that the bombs he throws may inspire some dickless loner.

The funny incredibly sad thing is that he probably didn't even realize he was doing it because he's a clueless fake millionaire empty suit who's age matches his IQ

He knows that his words were deliberately vague enough that useful idiots will immediately jump to his defense and say that we can't be sure that's what he implied.

[Flagg]

Wouldn't be surprised at all if he's running off a vague memory of Sarah Palin doing exactly the same thing a few years ago. Got the usual 'oorah' from the gun-heads and... that's about it.

It wasn't Palin, it was some daffy cunt running for Senate against Harry Reid IIRC. The incredibly sad funny part is that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to think Palin said it.

[Flagg]

You know, 2nd Amendment supporters also vote and are a notoriously motivated and single issue voting block...

Nah, he was OBVIOUSLY talking about murder instead. That's the reasonable assumption.

Dude, he pretty much said the only way to stop Clinton was using the second amendment. There's no way to read that without coming to the conclusion that he was wink wink nudge nudging the crowd about political assassination.

That's because Donnie Douchbag is a stupid bomb-thrower who doesn't seem to realize or care that the bombs he throws may inspire some dickless loner.

The funny incredibly sad thing is that he probably didn't even realize he was doing it because he's a clueless fake millionaire empty suit who's age matches his IQ

He knows that his words were deliberately vague enough that useful idiots will immediately jump to his defense and say that we can't be sure that's what he implied.

Well obviousely. Patroklos is exhibit A. Though I wouldn't call him useful.