US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if you're Trump, isn't that a much better reality to be living in than that stupid "real" world where people don't seem to recognize how supremely awesome and smart Trump is?

 

[Elixir]

Well, if you're Trump, isn't that a much better reality to be living in than that stupid "real" world where people don't seem to recognize how supremely awesome and smart Trump is?

"The real world? We're doing very well there. I love the real world, the real world is great. I have always loved the real world. That's why it supports me. I am gong to win the real world. If I don't win the real world, it's only because it cheated."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are quite correct, Jason. Nazis are racists and not all racists are nazis. You will notice I specifically mentioned the influence that Neo-Nazi thought has had amongst american white supremecist groups, and the cross pollination between the groups. To say that white supremecists in the United States have been influenced by nazi thought is not some wild slander: it is a fact. I've never said that all libertarians are nazis. However, I also specifically alluded to the relationship between some (not all) anti government groups with white supremecist groups. I also pointed out the obvious racism of some (but not all) libertarians to show that these groups are present within the movement. Thus, I find the suggestion that you've never encountered them among libertarians ludicrous. The relationship is: 19th century slave ideology influenced nazis and american white supremecists. Nazis influenced American white supremecists. White Supremecists influence some anti-government extremists, who use opposition to the government as a mask for their racism, just as the 19th Century slave owners used 'States Rights' as a mask for their pro slavery positions. And finally, these anti government groups are included among the groups that make up the Libertarian party. Is that clear enough?

Your hair splitting about the Civil Rights act of 1964 is silly and irrelevant. I feel perfectly justified in using support for the act as a litmus test for racism. Even today we still have a terribly biased system. The Act of 1964 was just one of many attempts to remove that bias. The fact that it hasn't succeeded shows that it didn't go 'too far.' Until real equality is achieved, I will not listen to protests of an act going 'too far.'

I have not dismissed you as racist. If I thought you were a racist, I'd have put you on ignore, like I have most of the racists on this board. You'll notice I am addressing your posts, while I am not addressing the posts of certain others who are posting on this thread. I regard you as a political extremist, who dislikes reasonable moderates and political compromise more than you dislike associating with racists and plutocrats.

Thank you for acknowledging that although Nazis are racists, the two terms are not synonyms. However, I was told not that I could find racists at libertarian conventions, but at the very least Nazi sympathizers. So while you're back-tracking and saying you meant racists and not Nazis, the discussion history shows otherwise.

But the key point, you are dismissing it while calling it splitting threads. It is most certainly not splitting threads to say that one could, in theory, have problems with the implementation and not the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, it is not splitting threads to say that some do, in fact, have problems with the implementation and not the purpose of that act. And it is not splitting threads to say that you are writing those people off as racists if they have a problem with the implementation but not the purpose of that act. It is not only not splitting threads, it is the main thrust of my post.

If you think that a bill with a good purpose and a bad implementation must be supported because of its purpose, I'm sorry, that is not a reasonable position.

 

[RavenSky]

I think this presidential run is going to turn out to be the worst decision he ever made in his life. Prior to this election cycle, I though Trump was a loud-mouth bore, but basically rational and a decent businessman. Now that details of his life-long business dealings and behavior have become national news, and I am forced to listen to his bloviating every day, I've realized that Trump is a certifiable wackadoodle I can't be the only one who continues to revise my opinion of him ever downward

Trump's best ability was selling his image. He did that very well.

Not any more, I'll wager

 

[RavenSky]

Prior to this election cycle, I though Trump was a loud-mouth bore, but basically rational and a decent businessman.

I guess you weren't paying close attention to his birther phase. I heard him calling in to a news show saying that he had sent people to Hawaii to dig into Obama's story and "you wouldn't believe what they're finding!" He's a pathological liar, and it was evident then.

In truth, I didn't pay much attention to him at all since sometime in the 1990's. I never liked his personality. I rolled my eyes when he got involved in the Doral golf courses, and rolled my eyes again when he set some woman up as a broker here in Miami. I also laughed my ass off at the look on his face when President Obama roasted him during a Correspondents Dinner. Beyond that, I didn't know much about what he was involved in until this election cycle.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Countdown to election day clock

https://days.to/election-day-in-us/2016

81 days to go!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the Bannon effect is taking off out of the gates and a Trump is making thinly veiled references to Clinton's health. The election is gong to get dirtier and dirtier.

Now that the risk of Trump becoming President has passed, it's become funny again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, the Bannon effect is taking off out of the gates and a Trump is making thinly veiled references to Clinton's health. The election is gong to get dirtier and dirtier.

Now that the risk of Trump becoming President has passed, it's become funny again.

On a web board, someone posted a picture of Clinton from behind and there is a strap indent on the upper back of her outfit. So obviously instead of assuming it must be a bra strap, the assumption is it must be an elaborate catheter. This stuff has been floating around the far right for a while.

Trump is having a hard time getting in touch with the moderates and women. This will do a "great" job at fixing that.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am not backtracking at all. Libertarians are the ideological successors of secessionists. White Supremacists are the ideological successors of Nazis. All of these groups are adept at portraying a respectable face to hide their worse nature. Pro slavery secessionists posed as states rights defenders of freedom. Nazis pretended to be more interested in boosting one ethnic group, rather than destroying others. White Supremacists, in their libertarian guise, pretend to be against federal power, and in favor of gun rights. It is absolutely understood that in the absence of control from above, those guns in the hands of the organized white supremacist groups would be used against blacks. All these groups are related, their symbols are often interchangeable. White supremacists display Stars and Bars outside their homes, while they keep the swastika inside.

Again, I find your denial of these well known facts of americana very fishy. How many unofficial, armed militias in the USA are integrated? I'm willing to bet not many.

And what, specifically do you object to in the execution of the Civil Rights act of 1964? I object to that it didn't go far enough, it assumed cooperation and obedience from civil servants, and lacked a mechanism for enforcing compliance against low level civil servants, and that it was in many ways limited to the southern states, ignoring subtler institutional racism elsewhere.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the Bannon effect is taking off out of the gates and a Trump is making thinly veiled references to Clinton's health. The election is gong to get dirtier and dirtier.

Now that the risk of Trump becoming President has passed, it's become funny again.

On a web board, someone posted a picture of Clinton from behind and there is a strap indent on the upper back of her outfit. So obviously instead of assuming it must be a bra strap, the assumption is it must be an elaborate catheter. This stuff has been floating around the far right for a while.

Trump is having a hard time getting in touch with the moderates and women. This will do a "great" job at fixing that.

It's not about fixing that, it's about distracting people and changing the conversation. Trump isn't going to win an election that's about the issues. His only chance is to make it such a crap fest that people want nothing to do with the process and stay home and his committed base of supporters then manage to eke out a narrow win. He goes more and more outrageous or he just goes home now.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am not backtracking at all. Libertarians are the ideological successors of secessionists. White Supremacists are the ideological successors of Nazis. All of these groups are adept at portraying a respectable face to hide their worse nature. Pro slavery secessionists posed as states rights defenders of freedom. Nazis pretended to be more interested in boosting one ethnic group, rather than destroying others. White Supremacists, in their libertarian guise, pretend to be against federal power, and in favor of gun rights. It is absolutely understood that in the absence of control from above, those guns in the hands of the organized white supremacist groups would be used against blacks. All these groups are related, their symbols are often interchangeable. White supremacists display Stars and Bars outside their homes, while they keep the swastika inside.

I'm not denying anything, and you are back-tracking. Your initial claim was about finding Nazi sympathizers, nut just racists or supremacists, at Libertarian conventions. Now you have finally admitted that they differ in profound ways on the topics of economic and social issues. Do you still stand by your claim of finding Nazi sympathizers, not just racists or supremacists, at Libertarian conventions? If so, how do you explain away the profound disparity in economic and social positions?

Again, I find your denial of these well known facts of americana very fishy. How many unofficial, armed militias in the USA are integrated? I'm willing to bet not many.

I don't know what you think I'm denying. However, there are a few things you should know.

It appears that you are arguing that once a position is tainted by racists having used it, that position is forever tainted by those racists. You mention those who would devolve power from the federal government to the state governments as an example. Such as the current push for marijuana legalization on the state level in spite of federal opposition to said legalization. That is a states versus federal issue. But "states rights" it tainted by having once been an argument used by racists, so therefore marijuana legalization is a racist dog whistle position? In spite of the fact that the drug war is one of the most racist policies of the current federal government?

It also appears that you do not know the history of gun control. It started to keep guns out of the hand of "the wrong people". To put it simply, it is easier to lynch someone who cannot defend himself. Yes, the first gun control laws were passed to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities. Yet you seem to want to tar anyone who believes in the contrary sensible position of gun liberty as being allied with racists at best and being one of the racists at worst. And given the "once tainted" innuendo, can I apply that taint to the original position of keeping firearms out of the hands of "those people"?

Ironically, many who support state level marijuana legalization were born AFTER the civil rights era, and never once used "states rights" for racist purposes, and only saw it being used that way in history books. They never witnessed it being used for racist purposes. They got to read about it. Yet by advocating it in this instance, they are apparently using a racist dog whistle term.

See how confusing things get when you insist on applying racial analysis to things that don't apply to race.

And what, specifically do you object to in the execution of the Civil Rights act of 1964? I object to that it didn't go far enough, it assumed cooperation and obedience from civil servants, and lacked a mechanism for enforcing compliance against low level civil servants, and that it was in many ways limited to the southern states, ignoring subtler institutional racism elsewhere.

I fully appreciate everything it says about civil servants. No government official acting in their capacity as such should allow race to influence any of their actions or decisions.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh for fuck's sake: White Supremecists = Nazi Sympathizers. I guess I was being too sophisticated when I said that 'American White Supremacists were influenced by Nazi thought in the thirties, and after World War II.' Someone who is influenced philosophically by something can be called a sympathizer of that thing.

I am not backtracking at all, I am merely clarifying that I think the two groups are equivalent.

The 'State's Rights' position has evolved. My whole point is that these false positions used for smokescreen are constantly changing. I used States Rights as an example because it is well known and was widespread. You are correct that it is no longer current. However, you cannot pretend that the racism no longer exists, and new terminology is not used. States rights was an old way of doing this. 'Law and Order' is another. I used the militias as a modern example.

The problem with you is that your definition of this whole thing is egocentric, while mine is historical. You define these terms as you see it now, in your own personal beliefs. You dismiss the whole 'States Rights' thing as 'part of the past' and no longer relevant, while I see it as one instance in a long history of similar things. You are trivially correct in thinking that the whole States Rights thing as a cover for racism is largely a thing of the past, and current people who invoke it are using it for non racist purposes. You are incorrect in therefore dismissing the very real and continual racial conflict. Like Chief Justice John Roberts, who declared the Voting Rights act had fulfilled its purpose and could be discontinued, leading to a rush of racially based voter suppression laws being passed, you ignore that the problem is still very much with us, in different guises.

One of the nice things about Trump, from your perspective at least, he's brought most of the White Supremacists directly into the Republican party. For many years, they sheltered in the Libertarian party (See Ron Paul's racist newsletter, again, a thing of the past, but relevant) Perhaps soon, you may be correct and the Libertarian party will no longer be a haven for white supremacists. However, as long as Libertarian influenced anti government extremists continue to show a strong racial bias, I will remain skeptical.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now I guess you are back-tracking the other way, because you are now trying to cover up your identification of racists with Nazis by abandoning the contested claim of there being Nazi sympathizers at Libertarian conventions. Since you are so adamant about Nazi sympathizers being in the Libertarian Party, tell me how you find compatibility between those who say that the government must control industry and those who say the government must not interfere in any way with the economy. Tell me how you find compatibility between those who say that the government must discriminate and those who say the government must never discriminate. Tell me how you find Nazi sympathizers in the party that was the FIRST to advocate gay rights. You can't. You can only repeat a baseless charge by going back and forth on whether or not you are equating all racists with Nazis or admitting that not all racists are Nazis (and not all Fascists are Nazis).

Can you pick a side and stick with it?

But going on to how you are historical while I am egocentric, I'm sorry but that is not supportable. The reason it is not supportable is because, as you noted, situations change and what was current then is not current now. Yes, "states rights" was once a cover used by racists. It was also a cover used by anti-racists, and now it is a cover used by people entirely unconnected to the issue of race. Instead of saying you are historical, you should perhaps say you are stuck in the past, and in one particular decade of the past. For me it is no longer the 1960s, it is the 2010s. By staying in the 1960s you get the absurd conclusion that I outlined, that by your premises the entire marijuana legalization movement is racist.

 

[Ford]

So, back to the whole "Great Horse Race" thing...

Real Clear Politics has Clinton at 272 in the Electoral College contest as of today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Five Thirty Eight has Clinton with a 74.7% chance of winning in their most conservative estimate.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus


270towin.com gives Clinton a solid 227 to Trump's 163 (with 148 up for grabs) http://www.270towin.com/


Recent polls by Pew and Bloomberg have Clinton up by 4 and 6 points, respectively.


If the election were held today, Trump would probably lose, and probably lose badly. His latest "pivot" (which sounds like an abusive husband promising he'll never beat you again) is still too fresh to be reflected in the numbers, but is there really anything he can do at this point to pull this one out?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I suspect he's hanging on hoping Clinton gets busted by the Justice Department - FBI. It's his only chance.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is there anyone else on this thread, or indeed upon this good Earth, that thinks calling an American White Supremacist a 'Nazi Sympathizer' is incorrect or somehow shifting goalposts?

 

[blastula]

but is there really anything he can do at this point to pull this one out?

Barring the unforeseen, the best he can do is only make it closer.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is there anyone else on this thread, or indeed upon this good Earth, that thinks calling an American White Supremacist a 'Nazi Sympathizer' is incorrect or somehow shifting goalposts?

Possibly. In the 30's, the population of the American Southern states was hostile to Nazism, but remained rather racist an devoted to Jim Crow and segregation. The two ideologies had different roots and emphasis.

There were in fact American Nazi and Fascist organizations but none of these managed to gain much of a following. On the other hand, Hitler was enthusiastic about American racist Madison Grant's racist book, extolling racism.

It is quite possible to be a virulent racist without necessarily being a supporter of Nazi ideology. There are in fact neo-Nazis but not all racists are neo-Nazis by any means.

 

[angelo]

Racism is so foolish as scientific evidence has proven beyond any doubt that under the skin we are all equal. No one race is superior to another.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Racism is so foolish as scientific evidence has proven beyond any doubt that under the skin we are all equal. No one race is superior to another.

Internet killed sarcasm.