Didn't see a thread discussing the election so figured I'd start one. We're in the final four+ weeks.
What prompted my search for an election thread was today's news about the 11 year-old Trump video of demeaning and sexually aggressive comments toward women. I just wanted to comment that the surprise, and only a slight one at that, is that Trump ever allowed himself to be recorded making such comments, not that he made them and said exactly what he believes.
A growing list of Republicans call for Trump to step down, writes today's Washington Post. Reading the article I'm struck by the insincere "taken unawares" reactions of many Republicans as if they had no idea of the true nature of the man. They knew, they were just holding their collective breaths hoping Trump could avoid calling too overt attention to it in the few weeks left before the election. The insincerity reeks.
Some Republicans are reacting like Republican representive Martha Roby of Alabama:
quote:As disappointed as I’ve been with his antics throughout this campaign, I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party. Now, it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and for our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket.
But one has to ask, "Why now?" Trump's true nature is no secret and has been no secret. As Trump's campaign management team is being repeatedly taught, it isn't possible to stop "Trump being Trump." As the antics mount more and more Republicans are finding their reserves of stoicism drained and their ability to continue expressing support exhausted.
To most minds the "responsible, respectable Republican" described by Roby would be Republican vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence, but can he make any claim to those qualities after backing Trump and becoming his running mate, thereby demonstrating near fatal levels of both blindness and irresponsibility.
Trump seems unlikely to lose significant voter support, but you can't blame the voters. The message voters are sending this year is, "You politicians have done a terrible job running the country, we're angry, and we're demonstrating that anger by voting against anything smacking of the status quo." Voting for Trump still sends that message, maybe even doubly so now.
The Republican party was complicit in creating an environment where someone like Trump could win the primary battle, but leave that aside. Once Trump won the primaries it is to Republican Party's eternal shame that they could not find their way to repudiation of Trump, not that some didn't try, Mitt Romney most prominent among them.
I'm going to vote for Jill Stein for president in order to see if we can get the Green Party vote count over 5%.
I don't think the race is close down your way, but there's less than 5 percentage points separating the candidates here in New Hampshire. I hope people who live in states where the race is close understand that voting for 3rd party candidates could give Trump a better chance. Even if they're averse to both Donald and Hillary I hope they realize what a disastrous president Trump would be and that Hillary is by far the lesser of two evils.
It often feels to me like half the people in this country have lost their minds. It's gratifying that at least some Trump supporters are abandoning him, but for too many there is apparently no depth of depravity, irresponsibility, deceit or ignorance that could cause them to reconsider. I wouldn't be surprised to see the headline, "Trump supporters undeterred by murder allegations."
Trump seems to me a dangerous combination of Groucho Marx and Adolph Hitler. The country and the world would be left a shambles by a Trump presidency's poor political, economic and military decision making. This deranged person will have his finger on the nuclear button - how can anyone feel comfortable with that?
I guess I'd like government focused on the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments are "instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" so that their citizens might enjoy the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This is, of course, a goal and an ideal to work towards, not a universally achievable reality, but successful governments endeavor in this direction by managing the affairs of the country (political, economic, infrastructure, military, international relations, trade, etc.) so as to foster a climate where people are best able to pursue their desires. Gerrymandering operates against this by distorting representation, biasing it toward one group at the expense of others. It seems to possess an insidious component in that government has proved unable to eliminate it - its advantages are just too enticing to most political parties. If they're in power in a state then they do it, and if they're not in power then they wait until they are and then they do it.
And gerrymandering notwithstanding, it seems very unlikely that the structure of representation will shift away from geography. If you want the best representation for your profession or your sport or your hobby or your avocation then you must vote for those who will advantage them best. The simplest way for government to satisfy your desires is to provide a general environment that provides you the most economic benefit, and then you can spend your money to pursue whatever you like.
But there are other very important factors. Do you want to exit your luxury apartment building in the city only to have to step carefully over the homeless living on the sidewalk? Do you want a cultural climate of first rate art and music that takes government support to provide widely and effectively? Do you want higher education to be more affordable so as to raise the general level of discourse, both in personal life and politically? Do you want to travel on roads and bridges that aren't crumbling, and use air travel that isn't demeaning and oppressive? Travel on buses and subways without fearing for your life or at least your wallet or purse? Drive to work without sitting at a light next to someone holding a homemade sign saying, "Homeless, please help"?
These types of goals often require voting against one's best economic interests because they require higher taxes. Many of these goals also require an attitude that although it is best if people work and provide for themselves that this isn't possible for everyone.
So that's how I feel, but what does that mean for me for this election? It means I must make the choice that makes it least likely that Trump will win, which here in New Hampshire means voting for Hillary Clinton.
I think Pressie meant that polls underestimated the Trump vote in the primaries, and that polls might again be underestimating the Trump vote in the general election. That would mean Trump's 45% could actually be 50%, not 40%.
A friend recently said he liked Trump because he would stand up to other world powers and wouldn't be afraid to push the nuclear button. He's attracted to Trump for the same things that terrify me.
Friends stay friends by not dwelling on issues they disagree about, so the conversation quickly moved on, but this again makes me wonder how informed could the support for Trump possibly be? Has everyone already seen this Clinton ad (it's only 30 seconds, anyone who hasn't seen it should watch it):
That's the question: How can anyone trust someone of Trump's impulsivity, recklessness and manipulative talents with our nuclear arsenal?
Yet that's precisely what some people like about him. They see Trump as saying to the world, "Give us what we want or we'll fire nuclear missiles at you," and to them this is a good thing. They seem unaware of the endless anguish the US has experienced and continues to experience over whether we should have dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese cities (despite that it was an expansionist evil empire that was committing atrocities on a scale second only to the Nazis), of the terrible suffering that would be caused by nuclear attacks, of the international repercussions and our much diminished reputation, of the impossibility of ruling a world by force for any length of time, of the immense harm it would do to the world politically and economically, of even the connected world where the fallout from our own nuclear attacks would eventually reach our own shores. Our air and missile weapons are in the 100 to 1000 kiloton range, while Little Boy and Fat Man were only 10-15 kilotons.
There is nothing to like about nuclear war, and sometimes I wonder if Trump supporters understand that.
I want to encourage people to read this incredibly entertaining and insightful link RAZD posted: How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind. I think the last line is especially good advice:
quote:It feels good to dismiss people, to mock them, to write them off as deplorables. But you might as well take time to try to understand them, because I'm telling you, they'll still be around long after Trump is gone.
I'm curious about how folks take on this article. My own impression as someone who has lived in urban areas since the age of 7, is that the writer's view of city folks is hopelessly incorrect.
It'd be easier to comment if you were more specific.
quote:The blue parts, however, are more densely populated -- they're the cities.
Evidently this guy has never been to Northern MN, WI, or Maine, NH and Vermont. Since when is CO primarily cities?
The sentence you quoted appears right below a map:
quote:
The country is lava.
Holy cockslaps, that makes it look like Obama's blue party is some kind of fringe political faction that struggles to get 20 percent of the vote. The blue parts, however, are more densely populated -- they're the cities.
I used a higher-res image that you can click on to see the county borders.
Anyway, obviously he doesn't worship at the Church of the Holy Cockslap, and just as obviously he doesn't think there are cities larger than some entire states. (Holy geography, Batman!)
I took a simple point away from his article: There's a great divide between Republican and Democratic constituencies, and we better work at understanding it because it's not going away.
Percy, that map was gotten from this site. There is another map that shows shades of purple that gives a truer picture rather than simply red or blue.
You mean this one?
Or the one at RealClearPolitics, which I can't figure out the URL for?
Anyway, I couldn't use a different map and still say I was quoting the article. ABE: I used the same image the article used, but fetched a higher res copy from the link the article provided.
I thought the article was intended to be entertainingly tongue-in-cheek while communicating a deeper message, that even if the Trump folks seem to you like they haven't a lick of sense, it's important to understand where they're coming from because they're not going away.
But the whole article is insultingly simplistic and inane.
You expected an article with the title "How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind" to be detailed and serious? Even after it told you right up front, "There's this universal shorthand that epic adventure movies use to tell the good guys from the bad," along with examples and images from The Hunger Games, Star Wars and Braveheart?
Anyway, as I've said a couple times now, I thought he communicated an important message.
™ Version 4.2
