Agree, especially after I read this:
2 Likes
Weâre talking about threats against them.
But you knew that. You just decided to boringly remind everyone how STUPIDEVIL the Republicans are, exactly like I asked you not to, because signalling that you have the Right Opinions is more important than actually any sort of interesting discussion.
1 Like
My antifa friends have no problem with this.
1 Like
It will be interesting to see what happens if Bernie wins a majority of the elected delegates (still slightly possible) and Hillaryâs superdelegates give her the nomination.
This is an acceptable outcome because primary âelectionsâ are actually an intra-party selection process that are a quasi-private matter similar to a corporate board selection process. Trump and Hillary did not âwinâ a single vote in all of this. Delegates to the respective conventions âwonâ the right to vote in favor of their candidate on the first round. None of this is enshrined in the US Constitution and only a few bits are codified in State Law.
Over the next few weeks the actual delegates will be selected by the State/Local political parties, so itâs important that each candidate now make sure that the individual people chosen will adhere to the candidate, preferably beyond the first round of votes at the convention. The individual people who go to the conventions are typically people who have been active participants in their party for a very long time, or have donated large sums of money over a very long time, or are local politicians who have represented their party for a very long time.
This part of the process is not âdemocraticâ in terms of the popular vote. (Itâs arguable that the general election isnât either with the electoral college.)
4 Likes
My guess is that him saying it isnât a big deal. The fact that itâs true regardless of if he says it or not is a big deal. Itâs just confirming their fears. This isnât a threat, itâs a promise, even a prophecy.
They canât STOP him from getting the nomination. The smarter among them are already making plans for how to deal with a Trump candidacy (and likely thinking about what to do in 4 years when they get ANOTHER chance to take out Clinton that they can possibly do much better on when Trump crashes and burns now). Minimize the damage to the brand. Stop it from tainting Republicans in 2018. Even tap into it a bit (if thereâs any big bogeyman for big government evil, Hilary Clinton will sit in that costume comfortably). The shift from âDo we allow this?â to âHow do we deal with the fact that this is going to happen?â has probably already happened. Him promising riots is just rubbing it in.
3 Likes
Well, itâs âacceptableâ as in âlegalâ. It would also encourage voters into open hostility against the party and hamstring Clinton in the general election. In the long term it might cause the party to rebound leftward and/or present a golden opportunity for a truly progressive third party, but at the cost of 4 years of Trump.
1 Like
Mexican Brown.
I donât know how I missed that, but good call. I personally think that gold will be the official military uniform colour, but I guess we can just wait and see.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, under a Drumpf presidency, the camouflage colour will also be goldâŚ
3 Likes
Do you perhaps mean the good guys with guns? If they are coming then none of us unarmed good guys have anything to worry about.
Wait, will there be uniforms?
Does camo mean bad, good, or just harder to see? Does a âPedroâ mean bad?
I get so confused.
1 Like
I have no doubts that Trumpâs supporters will ratchet up the violence if he is the nominee.
Voter suppression of non-whites via intimidation and violence is an old American tradition.
7 Likes
No. It seems part of the confusion here is over the definition of âdirect physical threatsâ: the Southern Strategy was racist and morally reprehensible, but it was not a direct call for violence. Subtly playing on peopleâs racist fears for votes is not even remotely the same as threatening that your own supporters will be violent if you donât get your way. I can understand the confusion because taking political advantage of racism has the long term effect of increasing the likelihood of violence, but thereâs no evidence it was the intent-- by the 70âs the GOP understood that violence worked against them in public opinion. Current Republican leaders have come out and explicitly said Trump hinting at violence is"unacceptable."
Iâm not defending the GOP here, theyâre craven and greedy, but if weâre going to have a substantive and intelligent discussion of politics it doesnât help to mischaracterize the other side, they already have plenty legitimately wrong with them (besides, exaggerating the threat and implying malevolence is exactly what conservatives do when discussing liberals.) That is what my âSTUPIDEVILâ comment was addressing: saying the RNC likes violence âdumbs downâ the debate.
Funnily enough in Illinois Trump had some issues with some of his voters not voting for all his delegates
Illinois Republicans hold a convoluted âloopholeâ primary: The statewide primary winner earns 15 delegates, but the stateâs other 54 delegates are elected directly on the ballot, with three at stake in each of the stateâs 18 congressional districts. Each campaign files slates of relatively unknown supporters to run for delegate slots, and each would-be delegateâs presidential preference is listed beside his or her name. As a result, the top presidential candidate in each congressional district usually claims all three of the districtâs delegates.
Except on Tuesday, a handful of congressional districts split their delegates in ways that cast doubt on votersâ racial motivations. Did voters have genuine personal preferences for the mostly anonymous individuals running for these slots, or was it a case of âwhatâs in a name?â
A FiveThirtyEight analysis of the dozen highest vote differentials within district-level Trump slates reveals a startling pattern: In all 12 cases, the highest vote-getting candidate had a common, Anglo-sounding name. But a majority of the trailing candidates had first or last names most commonly associated with Asian, Hispanic or African-American heritages. Of the 54 Trump delegate candidates in the state, two of the three worst-trailing candidates were the only two Trump candidates with Middle Eastern-sounding names.
4 Likes
Wait⌠which list? My list? Yours? The disappointed list? The shit list?
2 Likes
6 Likes
There will be increased risk of violence regardless of what happens. No one in the Drumpf campaign is rationally controlling what happens. Theyâre just escalating thoughtlessly and compulsively.
5 Likes
As many as it takes.
1 Like
I donât see the contradiction - the education creates more of what they say they love, after all.
1 Like
or history of public service (Ventura served his country, Trump was a draft dodger), humble backgrounds, or acting ability.
Yes, you may have a point we seem to be disagreeing over the definition of direct physical threats, as well as my use of the word âlikeâ. Okay then, first off, the RNC have not limited their activities over the last half century to subtly playing on peopleâs racist fears. The RNC shapes the Republican political platform, gives direction to party politics, etc in addition to developing election strategies.
The partyâs problem isnât just that the RNC adopted the Southern Strategy to capture unhappy white racist voters back in the 60s. The GOPâs problem is everything it has done ever since to keep them (and others like them).
Did you see this related post: http://boingboing.net/2016/03/03/understanding-american-authoritarianism.htm
Candidates deliver tough talk about fighting crime, war on drugs, and protecting home and family. Once in office elected officials push through policies and enforce laws that work to the detriment of communities of some communities more than others. Stop and frisk, broken windows, three strikes, stand your ground, to name a few. Is it reasonable to consider as direct physical threats whenever anyone faces a threat to their physical well-being as a direct result of GOP policy? I think so, and you donât have to agree. Meanwhile, GOP candidates need not dirty their own hands with actual body slams, beatings, shootings, false arrests, false imprisonments, and miscarriages of justice. And they can gasp and say âour prayers are with the victimsâ after every mass shooting while accepting NRA lobby money.
You have expressed exception to my use of the word âlikeâ and suggested Iâm dumbing down the discussion when I said that the RNC does like direct physical threats, that the RNC usually has people other than their front runner make the direct physical threats. To me the word âlikeâ seems apt in its senses of âprefer (one option to another)â and âdoes well inâ.
However if you wish I will restate my position: The RNC has made great political gains through the use of direct physical threats and violence. The RNC usually has people other than their front runner make the direct physical threats, ordinarily pointed at people who have little political power due to poverty and/or systemic racism. This political season the GOP front runner is issuing his own threats, and in all directions, mostly at protesters such as BlackLivesMatter protesters.
Itâs nice, but it isnât enough to denounce Trumpâs calls for violence. Just as it was nice, but it wasnât enough for the then-RNC chairman to apologize for the Southern Strategy back in 2005. The RNC needs to find a direction Trump isnât going, one that leads to good governance, and head there. They could start with a less racist, less sexist, less authoritarian platform.
5 Likes
