Not after the speech he gave Thursday and how his supporters act.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.
- Thread starter ampere
- Start date
- Status
Not after the speech he gave Thursday and how his supporters act.
nature boy
Member
Kinda weird that CBS says it will be their only interview together, just like Trump/Pence.
If their chemistry is great, I guess we'll see more interviews.
If their chemistry is great, I guess we'll see more interviews.
Is it though
It's not really weird. Typically the candidates can get solo interviews. It was only McCain/Palin that had so many together because Palin needed an adult to speak for her.
edit: I don't know if Trump is a step towards "death" for minorities but he is a step towards marginalization and disrespect being acceptable means of dealing with minority communities and that basically is the same thing to me.
tomorrow night
Tomorrow, on 60 Minutes.
This reminds me of a great American hero who once said some similar, now immortal, words.
"You're either with us, or against us, in the fight against white nationalism."
Bush was not discussing a binary decision. In a first-past-the-post system, you only have two options.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Can Pence really speak without Trump sticking his hand up his ass and pulling his puppet strings?
gutter_trash
Banned
Tomorrow night on CBS 7pm EST
Trump himself isn't going to just send out goon squads to kill people (like Duterte *cough*), but his victory will absolutely cause a massive legitimization of white supremacy in the eyes of his supporters. There will absolutely be attacks by white nationalists against people of color. The police will be emboldened. Not to mention whatever might go down if he decides to round up undocumented immigrants.
User 463088
Banned
That's not legal in Indiana.
nature boy
Member
Face the Nation has Obama.
MTP has Bernie + Trump. Trump and Sleepy Eyes together again!
Then 60 Minutes later.
We saw exactly that after the Brexit vote, so this would not surprise me at all.
Except it'll likely be more sustained given Trump would be in power for at least 4 years.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
You might even get points with Mormons, who are famed for their learning of foreign languages for missionary work in order to share their faith. I'm not expecting purple Utah, but...
Bill on sax, Kaine on harmonica, O'Malley on guitar. We need keyboard, bass and drums and we might have a band.
Trump has another autocratic ally:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hungarian-prime-minister-expresses-support-for-donald-trump-1469280755
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hungarian-prime-minister-expresses-support-for-donald-trump-1469280755
The analogy I've been using for not voting for Clinton, in conversation with liberal, not-crazy, science-minded people, is vaccine refusal.
There are basically two kinds of people who refuse to get their kids vaccinated. Some people have religious objections to vaccination - they refuse not because of any real-world property of vaccines but just because they've got some weird beliefs about the meaning and significance of vaccination. And then you've got people who think that vaccines cause autism or whatever - these are people who often have reasonable values but who just have bizarre ideas about how the world works. Some level of vaccine refusal is more-or-less harmless, but if you live somewhere where the number of people willing to vaccinate isn't high enough to achieve herd immunity, the behavior is a problem. If not enough people vaccinate we get whooping cough. It may be interesting to talk about which kind of vaccine refusal in such a situation is more immoral or negligent.
Likewise you've got two kinds of liberals who say they won't vote for Clinton. One kind acknowledges that it would be much better for Clinton to win but has this weird quasi-religious objection to voting for that outcome. As with vaccine refusal, this is often tied to notions of the significance of voting that have nothing to do with actual outcomes. It often comes from a concern for purity. The other kind of abstainer claims to think that somehow not voting for Clinton will actually bring about better outcomes. Like accelerationists. One gets the feeling with these people, like with the vaccines-cause-autism crowd, that this really isn't coming out of a clear-eyed study of the evidence. Of course, abstention is often harmless. It only becomes morally significant when you live somewhere where the number of people willing to vote for Clinton is not much higher than the number of people willing to vote for Trump. If not enough people vote Clinton we get Trump.
There are basically two kinds of people who refuse to get their kids vaccinated. Some people have religious objections to vaccination - they refuse not because of any real-world property of vaccines but just because they've got some weird beliefs about the meaning and significance of vaccination. And then you've got people who think that vaccines cause autism or whatever - these are people who often have reasonable values but who just have bizarre ideas about how the world works. Some level of vaccine refusal is more-or-less harmless, but if you live somewhere where the number of people willing to vaccinate isn't high enough to achieve herd immunity, the behavior is a problem. If not enough people vaccinate we get whooping cough. It may be interesting to talk about which kind of vaccine refusal in such a situation is more immoral or negligent.
Likewise you've got two kinds of liberals who say they won't vote for Clinton. One kind acknowledges that it would be much better for Clinton to win but has this weird quasi-religious objection to voting for that outcome. As with vaccine refusal, this is often tied to notions of the significance of voting that have nothing to do with actual outcomes. It often comes from a concern for purity. The other kind of abstainer claims to think that somehow not voting for Clinton will actually bring about better outcomes. Like accelerationists. One gets the feeling with these people, like with the vaccines-cause-autism crowd, that this really isn't coming out of a clear-eyed study of the evidence. Of course, abstention is often harmless. It only becomes morally significant when you live somewhere where the number of people willing to vote for Clinton is not much higher than the number of people willing to vote for Trump. If not enough people vote Clinton we get Trump.
Trump has another autocratic ally:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hungarian-prime-minister-expresses-support-for-donald-trump-1469280755
Shocking.
God damnit. Every time I read about these European right nationalists it makes me remember how much better off we'd all be if the Eastern Bloc had managed to reform and survive.
This is a good analogy.
Also, if enough people don't vote for Clinton, we will all die of preventable diseases.
I went to middle and high school in Venice Beach and Westchester areas of LA.
I used to see kids doodle swastikas in their notebooks all the time.
One kid in 9th grade asked if any of the black washed off when I showered at the end of the day, as though it was dirt...and was dead serious. I was sent to the counselors office for dragging him to the nearest water-fountain and dunking his face in it to see if his color came off.
I'm a much nicer guy these days.
But yeah racism is alive and well in LA. It just gets squashed down by that population.
Dominican Power
Member
California is a big ass state. And it's not like LA hasn't been notoriously racist.
nature boy
Member
2nd pic of the interview:
They will probably have an excerpt on the evening news.
They will probably have an excerpt on the evening news.
I'm not saying LA isn't racist, I'm saying Trump gives people the feeling they can be open about it.
Much in the same way we saw a rise in hate crimes with his initial announcement and with the Brexit vote.
People doodle swastikas in their private notebooks, and say dumb shit, but they don't walk around grocery stores with a swastika chain that's pretty massive.
A Trump victory pretty ensures that things get worse.
Much in the same way we saw a rise in hate crimes with his initial announcement and with the Brexit vote.
People doodle swastikas in their private notebooks, and say dumb shit, but they don't walk around grocery stores with a swastika chain that's pretty massive.
A Trump victory pretty ensures that things get worse.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No, I don't think so.
A President has to work with senators, congressmen, state governors and so on - so it's kind of important to let at least some of these have a significant say in who the party's candidate is. Of course sometimes it will look (to some, probably the losers) like a stitch-up, but far better a stitch-up beforehand than four years of gridlock afterwards. It's bad enough having gridlock or at least crashing gears against opposition parties, but it is disastrous when it is with your own people. For example, look at the UK Labour Party.
The Will of the People comes in in November.
Ratings > journalism
They all know half the shit being spammed out are all bullshit but they push it out for content and ratings.
I'd say that nominating someone who didn't get the majority of the votes of the party constituency will be a much bigger disaster for the democratic party then if the nominee has bad relationships with various down-ticket politicians. If it actually happened it would basically guarantee that candidate a loss in the general.
I'm not convinced that superdelegates would actually try to save the country in a Trump situation. If you keep them around only for emergencies, you're going to normalize not using them to swing elections, and then when you actually have a Trump situation the candidate will be able to effectively argue that the superdelegates are violating norms and stealing the election and that regardless this candidate isn't nearly so extreme as to justify the theft.
I mean, look at Trump. The Republican establishment probably could have denied him the nomination, but #NeverTrump collapsed in large part because a lot of the establishment got behind Trump when it was clear that he was the choice of the voters.
It's not like having superdelegates means that the voters are going to be aware that the system is intended to sometimes deny them their choice and that they'll be okay with that. Nobody even knew that superdelegates were a thing before this primary! In practice I suspect that superdelegates only actually swing an election if it's otherwise very close - they're a penalty of at most a few percent to anti-establishment candidates, with the penalty being slightly higher the more the establishment hates the candidate.
I mean, look at Trump. The Republican establishment probably could have denied him the nomination, but #NeverTrump collapsed in large part because a lot of the establishment got behind Trump when it was clear that he was the choice of the voters.
It's not like having superdelegates means that the voters are going to be aware that the system is intended to sometimes deny them their choice and that they'll be okay with that. Nobody even knew that superdelegates were a thing before this primary! In practice I suspect that superdelegates only actually swing an election if it's otherwise very close - they're a penalty of at most a few percent to anti-establishment candidates, with the penalty being slightly higher the more the establishment hates the candidate.
User 463088
Banned
Or O'Malley could just, you know, play guitar with his shirt off all day. That's fine too.
Also, something else?
Trump can't do anything small. (Which is kind of ironic). Like, okay, you want to woe Bernie supporters? That's fine! I don't begrudge you that. But you need to be real subtle. Or at least not OMG RIGGED AMIRITE VOTE FOR ME OKAY THNX BAI.
Well yes, that's exactly the point, and the reason it's never been exercised. Superdelegates are the nuclear option. You will probably damage yourself severely in the short term, and lose the election, but you may avoid permanently associating your party with the taint of an unpalatable nominee. Unlike Trump and the Republicans, who could possibly destroy their Latino support for generations, while severely compromising the principles of the nation, all to try to win one more election.
After wiki leaks they are all gone. Oh well.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That probably depends rather a lot on who the opponents are (both the actual opposition party and rival candidates) and on how extreme the differences between candidates, and on all sorts of finicky details like what sort of primaries there are and so on.
We'll probably disagree on which outcome is worse. I'm inclined to think that a single loss in the general is way better than several decades in the wilderness - but again I'm really looking at the UK system and the Labour party for evidence, as I don't know enough about the vicissitudes of the US system.
Lol
Yea and I don't trust superdelegates to make that decision, but phisheep's argument was about gridlock within the party after the election which doesn't really matter when you are killing your parties presidential chances.
User 463088
Banned
Literally, the only people who care about this stupid DNC thing are Republicans and the eleven Bernie or Bust people that are out there. Neither of which were going to support Hillary anyway. They need something that makes them feel wronged, because the moral outrage is all that keeps them going.
Also, GET HIM FORMA
Can someone explain this to me like I'm stupid.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, we're a bit at cross purposes here. I meant the gridlock part for if your party wins. It's perfectly feasible for a popular candidate (popular among the people, but not among other branches of government) to win a general and yet to fail so dismally in office as to ruin the party's chances for a long time afterwards.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
They all leaked out. Sad!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked