2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Why is he the only example, though, and not anyone else he's had on staff, and his veep pick is discounted? What makes this not cherry picking?

How do we know that Bannon's particular views are those that'll be dominant in a Trump cabinet? This seems like a huge leap to make.

Let's reverse it. My friend put out this bowl of cherries and there's one piece of shit in there. I pluck out the piece of shit, exclaiming, "what the hell is this doing in here?!?!?!"

My friend says, "oh, well, I kinda like shit and so do some of my 'odd' friends."

My point being, the whole bowl smells awful now and I'm not eating any of them.

One does not need to appeal to the worst elements in ones party to be elected. He *already won* the primary. Don't turn this into some false equivalence claiming Clinton is doing the same. There is no part of the Democratic party remotely close to that.


I'm pretty sure the left has thoroughly destroyed this argument about a week ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Except in the case of Trump Jr, he was talking about skittles (not cherries) and Syrian Refugees. (and poison instead of shit)

The point is: stereotyping is bad and wrong, whether you're on the left or the right. And pulling the exact argument as Trump Jr. just two weeks ago is kind of ironic.

Ha, fair, except this would be our president intentionally putting more shit into the bowl, and listening to its advice.

If calling Brannon a piece of shit is stereotyping, then okay, I'll live with that.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

Also "helping refugees" and "voting for the GOP" aren't really similar things.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyrs argument is something like, Trump is a deplorable person willing to use racists and neonazis to get votes from them but he'll ignore them just like Trump ignores other people. That's a dangerous gamble if Donald wins, but one establishment Republicans are making. (one could argue they've been making this gamble successfully for decades. )


Trump uses *everyone* and has extremely little loyalty. He'll ignore the extremists and the establishment in equal measure, and get on with pursuing important things, like how to tell the world how awesome he is. This is how he's actually used any power he's ever gotten, and I have no reason to believe he's changed.

And yeah, I'd agree that they *have* been making this gamble successfully for decades. It's probably a less good decision with Trump, not because the extremists will get power, but because the traditionalists won't get nearly so much as they're used to.

Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Why is he the only example, though, and not anyone else he's had on staff, and his veep pick is discounted? What makes this not cherry picking?

How do we know that Bannon's particular views are those that'll be dominant in a Trump cabinet? This seems like a huge leap to make.

Let's reverse it. My friend put out this bowl of cherries and there's one piece of shit in there. I pluck out the piece of shit, exclaiming, "what the hell is this doing in here?!?!?!"

My friend says, "oh, well, I kinda like shit and so do some of my 'odd' friends."

My point being, the whole bowl smells awful now and I'm not eating any of them.

One does not need to appeal to the worst elements in ones party to be elected. He *already won* the primary. Don't turn this into some false equivalence claiming Clinton is doing the same. There is no part of the Democratic party remotely close to that.


Your choice of metaphors is indeed amusing, and perhaps a bit unfortunate.

But yeah, appealing to the base is pretty standard for electoral politics. Clinton does the same. Look at her hapless attempts to attempt to appear a more average citizen in different areas to cater to local taste. Every candidate does the same. This doesn't mean that candidates are equal, merely that this isn't a differentiator...this is just politics. You don't usually win unless you can appeal to different groups of people.

And, as for "there is no part of the democratic party remotely close to that", I note that fivethirtyeight's discussion of deplorables had remarkably close survey results for both parties on some of those questions. For instance, describing blacks as unintelligent. Racist as shit, right? Democrats do it at almost the same rate as Republicans. Political parties are too broad to be composed entirely of saints.

As an aside, does anyone give two shits about the vice presidential debate? It seems like the answers pretty much no...

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:18 pm UTC

I think one of the the potential tragedies of a Trump administration is that an 'alt-right' influenced executive will probably let up on investigating municipal and state law enforcement agencies, just as public attention to police abuses have made the Justice Department take note of the disparities in policing minority communities and begin dragging police organizations into court over them.

We're a far ways from where we need to be in that regard, but IMO a Trump administration would put people in place who would ignore, or even encourage in the name of "Law and Order", the kinds of police abuses that we are finally seeing being addressed by the federal government.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And, as for "there is no part of the democratic party remotely close to that", I note that fivethirtyeight's discussion of deplorables had remarkably close survey results for both parties on some of those questions. For instance, describing blacks as unintelligent. Racist as shit, right? Democrats do it at almost the same rate as Republicans. Political parties are too broad to be composed entirely of saints.

Clinton isn't dog-whistling for the racists to come running though, is she. Her main advisers are not people (or even a single person) whose careers are built around race-baiting and inflaming resentments against entire religions.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:35 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And, as for "there is no part of the democratic party remotely close to that", I note that fivethirtyeight's discussion of deplorables had remarkably close survey results for both parties on some of those questions. For instance, describing blacks as unintelligent. Racist as shit, right? Democrats do it at almost the same rate as Republicans. Political parties are too broad to be composed entirely of saints.

Clinton isn't dog-whistling for the racists to come running though, is she. Her main advisers are not people (or even a single person) whose careers are built around race-baiting and inflaming resentments against entire religions.


Clinton's significantly less...overt about any sort of questionable sentiments than Trump is. It's hard to match that level of thoughtless blather that makes up the Trump style.

But Clinton has certainly worked to appeal to people that may not be exactly in her wheelhouse. She's previously talked about how the science on vaccines is inconclusive, for instance(So has Obama, as have many other politicians*. It was quite conclusively settled at the time). Doesn't mean she's an antivaxxer, merely that she was playing to the crowd, and trying to strike a position that wouldn't push them away. I consider antivaxxers to be pretty horrible people, and wouldn't want them in power, but it would be wrong to characterize Clinton as controlled by them.

*Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... cine-tweet

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But Clinton has certainly worked to appeal to people that may not be exactly in her wheelhouse. She's previously talked about how the science on vaccines is inconclusive, for instance(So has Obama, as have many other politicians*. It was quite conclusively settled at the time).
I think there's a substantial difference between an anti-vax position and a pro-racism position? I would rather elect a President who was skeptical about vaccines than a President who's comfortable with advisers who are outspoken advocates for racism. In fact, while the former might frustrate me deeply, the latter would frighten me.

(And remember, we're talking literal racism here. Breitbart supports positions that aren't just racist in an unwitting sense -- they're racist in the most precise and literal sense. Ideologies that propose a hierarchy of races.)

So, there's this thing called steel-manning -- where you take a position you fundamentally disagree with and produce the most effective argument for it that you can. Here's mine:
Hippo, pretending to be Tyndmyr wrote:While it's true that American internment camps have happened before, it's telling that they occurred under one of the most powerful administrations in American history. FDR was a war-time President; he had unprecedented influence over the Supreme Court -- he had record levels of popularity -- and he presided over one of the largest expansions of federal and executive power since Abraham Lincoln.

That's why I'm not worried about Trump: He's no FDR. He lacks FDR's focus, discipline, and intelligence; on top of this, it's likely his Presidency would be one of the most divisive in our history. His party is in a state of disarray (and that's probably not going to change under his administration) and the Democrats hate him. He's not going to have anything even resembling judicial or legislative solidarity.

Even if a terrorist attack happened, people loathe Trump with such intensity that it's almost impossible to imagine them uniting in support of him. He's never going to get the political capital he needs -- and if by some dark wizardry he did get it, he lacks the savvy and conviction to apply it like FDR did. And even if we presume his cabinet is stocked with savvy pro-internment camp super-geniuses, all the political capital in the world still might not be enough to push this through an antagonistic Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court.

And all of these points aside: Trump has demonstrated time after time that he is impulsive and mercurial. Even if he suddenly wanted this -- even if he pursued it -- it is pretty easy to imagine him getting distracted once it becomes apparent how much work would have to go into it. He lacks the simple endurance required to convince the American people that something as revolutionary as this is necessary.
Would you say this is a fair summary of your position? If it is, could you summarize mine, similarly?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But Clinton has certainly worked to appeal to people that may not be exactly in her wheelhouse. She's previously talked about how the science on vaccines is inconclusive, for instance(So has Obama, as have many other politicians*. It was quite conclusively settled at the time).
I think there's a substantial difference between an anti-vax position and a pro-racism position? I would rather elect a President who was skeptical about vaccines than a President who's comfortable with advisers who are outspoken advocates for racism. In fact, while the former might frustrate me deeply, the latter would frighten me.


The cost of both is counted in lives. Racism can lead to conflict and war, but pestilence is just as fearsome a horseman. It's the only one we've mostly managed to banish, as well. There's arguably more progress to be lost in giving credence to those who oppose preventative medicine.

(And remember, we're talking literal racism here. Breitbart supports positions that aren't just racist in an unwitting sense -- they're racist in the most precise and literal sense. Ideologies that propose a hierarchy of races.)


Citation needed.

I have no trouble believing that Breitbart is casually racist towards groups that happen to be not republican, Baptist, etc, but if they're proposing an explicit hierarchy of races, I want a link.

So, there's this thing called steel-manning -- where you take a position you fundamentally disagree with and produce the most effective argument for it that you can. Here's mine:
Hippo, pretending to be Tyndmyr wrote:While it's true that American internment camps have happened before, it's telling that they occurred under one of the most powerful administrations in American history. FDR was a war-time President; he had unprecedented influence over the Supreme Court -- he had record levels of popularity -- and he presided over one of the largest expansions of federal and executive power since Abraham Lincoln.

That's why I'm not worried about Trump: He's no FDR. He lacks FDR's focus, discipline, and intelligence; on top of this, it's likely his Presidency would be one of the most divisive in our history. His party is in a state of disarray (and that's probably not going to change under his administration) and the Democrats hate him. He's not going to have anything even resembling judicial or legislative solidarity.

Even if a terrorist attack happened, people loathe Trump with such intensity that it's almost impossible to imagine them uniting in support of him. He's never going to get the political capital he needs -- and if by some dark wizardry he did get it, he lacks the savvy and conviction to apply it like FDR did. And even if we presume his cabinet is stocked with savvy pro-internment camp super-geniuses, all the political capital in the world still might not be enough to push this through an antagonistic Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court.

And all of these points aside: Trump has demonstrated time after time that he is impulsive and mercurial. Even if he suddenly wanted this -- even if he pursued it -- it is pretty easy to imagine him getting distracted once it becomes apparent how much work would have to go into it. He lacks the simple endurance required to convince the American people that something as revolutionary as this is necessary.
Would you say this is a fair summary of your position? If it is, could you summarize mine, similarly?


I'm not sure I see much difference between men of steel and straw. The position you imagine is not really mine. It is true that Trump is not FDR, but that's not the core reason why Trump will act differently than FDR.

FDR was a man of his time. He made the errors of his time, which happened to include internment camps. We're not in that time anymore. Trump is unlikely to make those errors, but rather, to embrace the errors of this time.

Internment camps are the wrong thing to worry about. Foreign policy blunders and partisanship are the right things to worry about. The problem with Trump isn't that he's WW2 era, but that he represents some of the worst of this era.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:06 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The cost of both is counted in lives. Racism can lead to conflict and war, but pestilence is just as fearsome a horseman. It's the only one we've mostly managed to banish, as well. There's arguably more progress to be lost in giving credence to those who oppose preventative medicine.
I agree that resistance to vaccines costs lives; however, I think the impact of a President who's skeptical about vaccines and a President who's advisors accept racial ideology (again, in the most precise sense -- this is a Breitbart article that very briefly discusses support for Steve Sailer and Razib Khan -- and the concept of 'human biodiversity') are not equal.
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not sure I see much difference between men of steel and straw.
You... think that was a strawman argument? Like, we both agree strawman arguments are sham arguments designed to be easily defeated, right? You think the argument I just posted is easily defeated?

Because I definitely don't! The argument I just posted is actually one I find really hard to defeat! I agree with a lot of it. Trump won't have political solidarity; he is mercurial, and may lack the stamina required to push this through. I cited FDR mostly because FDR is one instance we have where internment camps happened, so it pays to analyze why they happened (and no, they weren't just a product of their time; plenty of people opposed FDR's policy quite vocally, and it was extremely controversial -- even in its day). Through that analysis, I can argue why a Trump presidency wouldn't be able to replicate them.

I still think I'm right, mind you (that it's reasonable to fear a Trump Presidency leading to internment camps), but I also think the argument I just posted raises some excellent points against me. And... you... don't? Like, now I'm super-duper confused -- because I feel like I just laid out an extremely good argument in your favor, and you're still rejecting it?

I feel like we might really be talking past one another, here.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Foreign policy blunders and partisanship are the right things to worry about. The problem with Trump isn't that he's WW2 era, but that he represents some of the worst of this era.
This is a very cogent statement of affairs.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:26 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:This is a very cogent statement of affairs.
I don't agree? I mean, I don't think anyone thinks Trump is a WW2 era problem anyway -- I also don't think he represents the worst of this era by a long-shot.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:34 pm UTC

The link went dead, but the GOP declared A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe the winner of the VP debate (which hasn't started yet): https://twitter.com/LisaMcIntire/status ... 9798013952

In related news, the gop.com 404 page includes a joke about both Hillary Clinton and the link being broke, which makes no sense. She has plenty of money. It's your candidate who likes to claim to have no money for tax purposes, remember?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:48 pm UTC

Oh -- by the way -- Tyndmyr, it occurred to me that you're probably not familiar with the human biodiversity movement or Steve Sailer (which wouldn't be surprising; he's pretty fringe right), so if that's the case, I should probably introduce you to him. Here's an article he wrote about New Orleans; of particular note is this quote:
Steve Sailer wrote:All this is now common parlance, more or less. What you won`t hear, except from me, is that "Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
He's definitely a 'racial hierarchies exist' kind of guy.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:30 am UTC

ahammel wrote:The link went dead, but the GOP declared A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe the winner of the VP debate (which hasn't started yet): https://twitter.com/LisaMcIntire/status ... 9798013952

In related news, the gop.com 404 page includes a joke about both Hillary Clinton and the link being broke, which makes no sense. She has plenty of money. It's your candidate who likes to claim to have no money for tax purposes, remember?

The joke is the Clintons claimed to be broke when they left the White House
lol everything matters
-Ed

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:47 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
morriswalters wrote:This is a very cogent statement of affairs.
I don't agree? I mean, I don't think anyone thinks Trump is a WW2 era problem anyway -- I also don't think he represents the worst of this era by a long-shot.
Think Billionaire with a reality TV show, and best buds with a shock jock who has women riding masturbation machines on his show. However that is a personal position.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:50 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:
ahammel wrote:The link went dead, but the GOP declared A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe the winner of the VP debate (which hasn't started yet): https://twitter.com/LisaMcIntire/status ... 9798013952

In related news, the gop.com 404 page includes a joke about both Hillary Clinton and the link being broke, which makes no sense. She has plenty of money. It's your candidate who likes to claim to have no money for tax purposes, remember?

The joke is the Clintons claimed to be broke when they left the White House

Ah, only 16 years out of date, then. Well done, the 404 page joke person.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:44 am UTC

VP debate:

Kaine: What a kid. He seems like a super nice guy. Gives some pretty solid answers on policy. Can get a little overly excited.

Pence: Seems pretty condescending. Has a deeper voice and speaks more slowly, which might be appealing to some. Keeps calling Clinton's campaign "insult-driven", which is pretty funny.

Both: Plenty of interrupting.

Moderator: She's doing pretty well. Sometimes Constantly gets talked over.

Edit: Pence's game plan seems to be to shake his head and smile/laugh whenever Kaine quotes something Drumpf has said.

"Gentleman please"
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DaBigCheez » Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:15 am UTC

Well, that lasted one and a half questions before devolving into a second-grade schoolyard shouting match :V
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

"The errors of our time" can be worked out ... after our time is over.

Great man or not, the US president has ridiculous amounts of power if they choose to weild it, and they can convince a mere majority of congress and the senate to run roughshod over the minority opposition.

Recently in politics, you have heard humming and hawing about *not* using the power that the US system gives the houses of government. Restraint.

The Trump / Tea party / Alt-Right movement seem less likely to embrace such restraint. The technocrat neo-con1 republicans seem to have rolled over and are being eaten by their vile spawn.

"Don't worry about massive state-backed racism and mass imprisonment of citizens; worry about trade policy" seems short sighted.

1 Neo-con are is the wave of former progressives who became conservatives in the 60s/70s or so; instead of make peace not war, they pushed for make war to win peace.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm UTC

*Communists, actually.

Neocons started as former Trotskyists; the commies who wanted to evangelize the world with Marxist-Leninism. Then in 1956, Hungary happened, and all but the most stubborn of commies (and the paid shills) fled the Communist Party USA. Some kept up with the civil rights movement including Dr MLK Jr's friend Stanley Levison, but a number of others rejected communism in favor of unbridled capitalism while keeping the same tactics and mindsets they had as Trotskyists. Thus the neo-con movement was born.

Also, the Civil Rights Movement began as a communist conspiracy, but that's a bit complicated, not to mention that the commies were right on that one even if it was done for all the wrong reasons.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:47 pm UTC

I'm not sure if anyone realizes, but the Democrats are in a precarious position because they don't control very many states. It's been hidden by Republican incompetence and the Democrats controlling the white House. A Trump presidency would give the GOP all the branches of the federal government and 75%of the States.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:48 pm UTC

The states don't have equal power though do they? I thought it was vaguely proportional to population. And the Dem states tend to be more urban and have higher populations.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Whizbang » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:13 pm UTC

Right1. If it was straight population then the Democrats would win every time. If it was state count then the Repubs would have it. So they sought out some imagined middle ground that will, hopefully, result in fewer disgruntled and trampled on citizens. I'll leave determining the success or failure of this method as an exercise to the reader.


1 As far as I understand it.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

Each US state government is equally powerful and sovereign, having control of all government power within their borders not given to the federal government by the Constitution. No state has more power than any other.

They are unequal in that they have varying levels of representation in the federal US House of Reps, which is distributed by state population (this also relates to how many electoral college votes they get for President).

Republicans controlling state legislatures is important because it gives them tremendous power over a lot of more local state-level issues in many states. While the Federal Government gets a lot of attention, and its national-level powers are not inconsiderable, state level power widely touches upon everyday life (such as education, many taxes, etc.) and, honestly, you can get away with a ton of crap at the state level that would get held up/media attention and backlash at the federal level.
Last edited by Djehutynakht on Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

I wonder if 538 has looked at upstream effects of state candidates on the presidential race. I know in the past, NC was a solid Democratic state, internally, while going for Republicans at the national level.

Currently, the gubernatorial race is pretty close between McCrory and Roy Cooper. The former is taking lots of flack for HB2. With an increase in straight-ticket voting, Trump might be hurt by McCrory doing poorly. It's probably really hard to tease out the feedback loops between the two.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The cost of both is counted in lives. Racism can lead to conflict and war, but pestilence is just as fearsome a horseman. It's the only one we've mostly managed to banish, as well. There's arguably more progress to be lost in giving credence to those who oppose preventative medicine.
I agree that resistance to vaccines costs lives; however, I think the impact of a President who's skeptical about vaccines and a President who's advisors accept racial ideology (again, in the most precise sense -- this is a Breitbart article that very briefly discusses support for Steve Sailer and Razib Khan -- and the concept of 'human biodiversity') are not equal.


We're getting off on a side track here. Trump and Clinton are not equal. Or at least not identical. Their failings are different. But it's still fair to discuss both failings.

And a summary of the alt right does not constitute an endorsement of every part of it. They mention those people in passing, in the context of summarizing a group. The point they are trying to make is one of diverse viewpoints, not of endorsing a hierarchy of races. Because, holy shit, those are very different things. You aren't providing a citation for your actual claim.

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not sure I see much difference between men of steel and straw.
You... think that was a strawman argument? Like, we both agree strawman arguments are sham arguments designed to be easily defeated, right? You think the argument I just posted is easily defeated?

Because I definitely don't! The argument I just posted is actually one I find really hard to defeat! I agree with a lot of it. Trump won't have political solidarity; he is mercurial, and may lack the stamina required to push this through. I cited FDR mostly because FDR is one instance we have where internment camps happened, so it pays to analyze why they happened (and no, they weren't just a product of their time; plenty of people opposed FDR's policy quite vocally, and it was extremely controversial -- even in its day). Through that analysis, I can argue why a Trump presidency wouldn't be able to replicate them.


The fact that you believe you made a strawman argument that was really good does not in any way circumvent the fact that you're creating an argument of your own to knock down, rather than addressing mine.

I still think I'm right, mind you (that it's reasonable to fear a Trump Presidency leading to internment camps), but I also think the argument I just posted raises some excellent points against me. And... you... don't? Like, now I'm super-duper confused -- because I feel like I just laid out an extremely good argument in your favor, and you're still rejecting it?

I feel like we might really be talking past one another, here.


You're honestly baffled that anyone might disagree with you, because you're so certain you must be correct?

My god, maybe you understand Trump after all.

The Great Hippo wrote:Oh -- by the way -- Tyndmyr, it occurred to me that you're probably not familiar with the human biodiversity movement or Steve Sailer (which wouldn't be surprising; he's pretty fringe right), so if that's the case, I should probably introduce you to him. Here's an article he wrote about New Orleans; of particular note is this quote:
Steve Sailer wrote:All this is now common parlance, more or less. What you won`t hear, except from me, is that "Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
He's definitely a 'racial hierarchies exist' kind of guy.


Cool, you've easily established that this Sailer chap sounds racist. That particular quote sounds like he's faulting education, but it's still a pretty terrible ideology.

However, the link now goes from him, to Bannon, to Trump, and the only evidence you have is an offhand mention in an article. This is conspiratorial as hell. This dude doesn't control shit, and the idea that this ideology is what'll be running the country if Trump gets elected is not supported by what you have presented.

Yakk wrote:"The errors of our time" can be worked out ... after our time is over.

Great man or not, the US president has ridiculous amounts of power if they choose to weild it, and they can convince a mere majority of congress and the senate to run roughshod over the minority opposition.


I dare say that in any given time, there were plenty of voices of reason calling out the errors of their time. Perhaps not the majority, but one can find calls regarding various injustices recorded well before society finally got around to fixing them. It was not so difficult to realize that gays should be treated equally before they were(and in many an area, they still are not quite there). It isn't terribly hard to realize that the war on drugs and crime is creating an awful toll in innocent lives.

We can recognize the errors of our time right now. We must, in order to fix them.

sardia wrote:I'm not sure if anyone realizes, but the Democrats are in a precarious position because they don't control very many states. It's been hidden by Republican incompetence and the Democrats controlling the white House. A Trump presidency would give the GOP all the branches of the federal government and 75%of the States.


The supreme court is particularly vulnerable to this election. It has, in recent times, been relatively balanced. Whoever pulls this election will probably set 2-3 justices. Maybe more, but stats wise, probably 2-3. That can make a rather large swing, that can persist for quite some time.

Logically, this should probably impel me to vote Republican, because Clinton's pretty anti-gun, and it's highly likely she'd seek anti-gun justices. I don't particularly like this conclusion because of who's running, and I'll probably still vote third party tactically/out of stubbornness, but I can see how it's a factor for people making tough decisions in swing states.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ions-shou/

Donald Trump: Tim Kaine’s ‘constant interruptions’ ‘should not have been allowed’


I have to say, this article is probably what Tim Kaine was going for.

Tim Kaine was very awkwardly attacking and interrupting throughout last night's debate. And nobody gives a damn about it. But by getting Trump to tweet about the interruptions, they can claim moral high-ground in the first debate, and probably setup well for the 2nd debate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:(And remember, we're talking literal racism here. Breitbart supports positions that aren't just racist in an unwitting sense -- they're racist in the most precise and literal sense. Ideologies that propose a hierarchy of races.)


Citation needed.

I have no trouble believing that Breitbart is casually racist towards groups that happen to be not republican, Baptist, etc, but if they're proposing an explicit hierarchy of races, I want a link.


http://www.google.com/

:P

Spoiler:
Sorry.

Breitbart themselves mention "human biodiversity in their "Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right"

In These Times replied directly
Sailer, the piece notes, “helped spark the ‘human biodiversity’ movement, a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences.” An example of this minefield-striding would be Sailer’s assertion that African-Americans “tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.”

The alt-right’s intellectual leaders also include the self-styled “Neoreactionaries,” who come out of a web community called LessWrong that “urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans.” Among the tenets of this subculture are that “egalitarianism flew in the face of every piece of research on hereditary intelligence,” and that “asking people to see each other as human beings rather than members of a demographic in-group … ignored every piece of research on tribal psychology.”

There are a few other currents mentioned—like the “online ‘manosphere,’ the nemeses of left-wing feminism”—but for the most part the influential thinkers of the alt-right movement cited by Breitbart, the self-declared “platform for the alt-right,” are people who would be called “racists” by anyone who wasn’t concerned that that word unfairly stigmatizes those who believe their race is better than others.

In other words—racists? No, insists Breitbart—because they “eschew … bigotry on a personal level.” (Yiannopoulos and Bokhari seem to place a lot of weight on the fact that “Jewish gays and mixed-race Breitbart reporters” like themselves get invited to alt-right dinner parties.) But the “natural conservatives” are “frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.” And “many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows.”

This makes the “natural conservatives” natural allies with the theorists of racist pseudo-science:

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.

In other words, they’re racists.


Cathy Young is pretty generous with links in her article about the alt-right that mentions both reitbart and "human biodiversity."
In a nutshell, the article argues that, while the alt-right does have some actual—but, worry not, utterly irrelevant!—white supremacists and neo-Nazis in its ranks, it is mostly a loose alliance of maverick intellectuals, traditionalists who feel unrepresented in the mainstream political establishment, and cheeky young rebels who post racist slurs and memes just to annoy the pearl-clutching guardians of Basic Human Decency.

Take the article’s section on the “intellectuals” behind the alt-right, which offers a respectful account of the movement’s online hubs such as Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com, Steve Sailer’s blog, and VDARE. Sailer is credited with having “helped spark the ‘human biodiversity’ movement, a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences—in a much less measured tone than former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade.”

A caption also notes that “Razib Khan, who lost an opportunity at the New York Times over his views on human biodiversity, now writes for the alt-right Unz Review.” We are clearly meant to get the impression that the alt-right web is a refuge for, as the authors put it, “dangerously bright” people unafraid of taboo topics. While Bokhari and Yiannopoulos acknowledge that “all of these websites have been accused of racism,” the unmistakable implication is that such accusations stem from P.C. hypersensitivity—and probably fear of the alt-right gurus’ outstanding intelligence.


Long Island Wins (refugee-friendly, judging by the strapline or whatever that thing's called) isn't right happy about Breitbart and the alt-right either, but is rather short on citations.
The Alt-Right used to be relegated to racist white nationalist sites like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, but Breitbart gave them a platform on one of the largest opinion sites on the internet.

Over the last year, Breitbart has had articles praising the so-called “human biodiversity” movement, which it describes as “a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences.” Breitbart also began to embrace the Russian government of Vladimir Putin as an exponent of the what it calls the “masculinist principle” of the strong white man willing to exercise his will.

The right-wing site also has applauded the “natural conservatives,” who have “a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism.”

This resistance to diversity is founded in racial differences, Breitbart said in an article last year:

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.


The Guardian have a piece on it. "But are Breitbart and Bannon really a part of the movement? Some of its most hardcore activists say no."
Shane Burley, a journalist and researcher who has covered the far right extensively, says that Spencer’s orientation “is clearly under the umbrella of what we would call fascism”. Spencer’s so-called “race realism” underpins theories of racial hierarchy, and the idea that it has a basis in biology. Related ideas of “human biodiversity” attempt to buttress the notion that race is destiny, and the primary organising category of society and history. Radix is full of articles that link race with IQ or crime. This revival of previously discredited scientific racism is another recurring feature of alt-right thought.


GotNews respond to Cathy Young: "Yes, Cathy Young Is A Cowardly Fraud and Not Just On The #AltRight Hit Piece" and they cite Jewish support for FDR as evidence that ex-European Jews are Marxists. :roll:

Forward.com have a guide to the racist, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant and homophobic ideologies' corner of the internet. Over here, Forward is the Guide Dogs magazine.
Breitbart has deemed the “alt-right” the “hipster right,” and helped tie the American movement to its European ultranationalist counterpart, Generation Identity. Breitbart is also a vehicle for Milo Yiannapoulos, the ultra-conservative commentator, to attack mainstream Republicans, such as Paul Ryan. in his capacity as “technology editor.”

Breitbart made its biggest, most lasting splash when it published “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” in June. The article, written by Milo Yiannapoulos and Allum Bokhari, was an apologia for the intellectual and cultural leaders of the “alt-right.” It praised the human biodiversity phenomenon, calling the pseudoscientific racist movement “group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences.”


Field Negro has a guide to "the alt-right takeover."
A political movement most Americans have never heard of is suddenly in the spotlight, thanks to Donald Trump — who has hired one of its leading spokesmen to run his campaign — and Hillary Clinton, whose speech planned for Thursday afternoon is expected to denounce it.

It’s the “alt-right,” a loose aggregation of bloggers, radio hosts, think tanks and activists that emerged from the “white nationalist” movement of the 1980s and 1990s. It occupies positions on the far right of American politics, but it is not primarily about the issues that motivate mainstream conservatives, such as taxes or government spending. Instead, it postulates that the culture of white America is under attack, and sees itself as its defender.

Trump has for much of his campaign flirted with “alt-right” themes, mostly through retweets, some of which he later disavowed. When former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke — a major figure in the “alt-right” world — urged his supporters to back Trump, the candidate maintained, implausibly, he didn’t know anything about Duke before grudgingly disavowing the support.

But with the hiring of Breitbart Media chairman Steve Bannon as CEO of his campaign, Trump has embraced someone at the heart of the movement, who boasted of turning Breitbart.com into “the platform of the alt-right.” Duke himself celebrated the hiring with the boast: “We’ve taken over the Republican Party,” although presumably the party’s mainstream leadership would disagree.


Vocem Libertatis "seeks to connect the dots."
Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart columnist (who left the organization over the handling Michelle Field’s allegations of being grabbed by former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski), has a good summary of the transformation of Breitbart into a ‘motley collection of white supremacists and anti-Semites’ in a recent Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... b6d8c60b1d. In it, an individual by the name of Richard Spencer states that Breitbart “has elective affinities with the alt-right, and the alt-right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.”

Who is Richard Spencer? In an article back in March of this year, Milo Yiannopolis, Technology Editor at Breitbart and outspoken Trump supporter (recently known for being banned from Twitter for inciting racist trolling of a black comedienne http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why ... ls-n638291, but has become an alt-right ‘celebrity’ of sorts) wrote an ‘Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right’ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/2 ... alt-right/. In it, Yiannopolis cites Richard Spencer (along with other figures and sites such as American Renaissance, VDare, and so forth) as one of the foundational intellectuals of the newfound ‘alternative right’ movement. Currently, Richard Spencer runs the white supremacist think-tank called the National Policy Institute which is “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” The NPI also publishes a site called RadixJournal.com, which is the “news” and opinion site for the NPI.


We Hunted The Mammoth continue the story of that "guide" piece:
Earlier this week, you see, Breitbart gave a big wet kiss to the posterior of the internet’s white supremacists in the form of a 5000-word “Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right” written by Milo and his colleague Allum Bokhari (and presumably a small army of Milo’s interns).

Milo et al celebrated the can-do spirit of the proudly racist and anti-Semitic alt-right and tried, as best they could, to pretend that the virulently racist movement’s virulent racism was all a big goof.

Yesterday, Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer — the disconcertingly popular alt-right internet tabloid — told Milo and pals to eff off, in a post memorably titled “Breitbart’s Alt-Right Analysis is the Product of a Degenerate Homosexual and an Ethnic Mongrel.” It goes without saying that Anglin, who festoons his site with giant swastikas and animated gifs of Hitler, is not a fan of either of those demographics.


... so, the Unz Review and RadixJournal, eh?

Well, let's see what Breitbart has to say about the Unz Review:
Journal of American Greatness: A Coherent ‘Trumpism’

At the time of this writing, Donald Trump is in a commanding position to win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Naturally, Trump’s legions of enemies in what used to be called the “conservative movement” are flailing and despondent. They should be. Trump has, for now, more than revived his momentarily flagging campaign. And even if he is eventually defeated at the polls, this win boosts the chances that his ideas—if we may use such a lofty term for Trump’s as-yet unformed and instinct-driven platform—will outlive his candidacy. Trump’s run has opened the way, for the first time in more than a generation, toward progress and return—progress beyond ossified ideologies, and return to a superior understanding of man, politics, America and the West itself.

Trump is, in the decisive sense, more conservative than the entire conservative establishment. Unlike them, he is actually trying to conserve something bigger than his job and status: namely, the American nation. Yet “Trumpism” needs something Trump himself cannot provide. John Derbyshire praises Trump’s “gut conservatism” as a welcome relief from the failures of the intellectual class.
Read the rest of the story at The Unz Review and the Journal of American Greatness.
Hmph. Not so enlightening without commentary, but ... well, isn't "retweeting" their article and linking to it a kind of endorsement?

Well, then, let's see what Unz have to say:
“War”—Steve Bannon, BREITBART Ben Shapiro, and What Comes Next

“War” was the late Andrew Breitbart’s one-word analysis of how American patriots should treat the Lying Press. It’s a war that’s continued even after his death, under the leadership of Steve Bannon. And, as in all wars, the self-declared guardians of “true conservatism” are eager to call retreat.

Leading the charge: the littlest neocon, Ben Shapiro, who, after a career spent posturing against Basic Human Decency and Safe Spaces, is now moaning about unapproved voices gaining ascendance within the American Right.

But Breitbart is hardly an Alt Right site. The idea that one impartial article written about the Alt Right on Breitbart many months ago permanently labels the site as part of the movement simply shows the dominance of totalitarian Cultural Marxism.

As far as the arguments go, it’s not the Alt Right which believes “birth on American soil confers superiority,” it’s both mainstream Leftists and “conservatives” who believe being born on America’s magic dirt sparks a mysterious alchemy of assimilation.

The Alt Right also isn’t necessarily opposed to “constitutionalism”–but it seems to be the only group which notices only the historic American population, the European-American core, actually seems to care about abstractions like “limited government.”

It’s rare you can absolutely prove someone is arguing in bad faith. But we know Shapiro is–because he has explicitly and repeatedly endorsed nationalist policies for the ethnostate of Israel. This includes policies that even many Trump supporters might find extreme, such as “population transfers” designed to protect the ethnic balance of the state:

In the long term, the growth of the hostile Israeli-Arab population within pre-1967 Israel bodes ill for the future of the Jewish state. As University of Haifa professor Arnon Soffer says, “The trends and indicators all point to an economic and ecological catastrophe waiting to happen and of the death knell of the ideological dream of a Jewish state.”

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution.

[Transfer is not a dirty word, by Ben Shapiro, Townhall, August 27, 2003]


Thus, there’s a simple way to determine who is on the side of the Historic American Nation and who is not. Patriots recognize the Main Stream Media is an enemy which needs to be bypassed or destroyed. Shills rely on the MSM for the livelihood, and, in true Conservatism Inc. style, help police the American Right in partnership with the far Left. Shapiro and others like him who run to The Washington Post or the Daily Beast to trash the American Right reveal themselves as the traitors they are.

The truth: Breitbart is not “extreme” – even the best journalism at that site just recycles the same material VDARE.com has been pushing for more than a decade. The threat is more about Breitbart’s attitude towards other media outlets than what they are actually saying.

Conservatism Inc. media and political personalities rely on the MSM for their livelihoods, even as they pretend to oppose it. Shapiro has revealed he is part of this parasitic class.

Indeed, Charles C. Johnson (not to be confused with the effeminate hysteric “lesser Charles Johnson” of Little Green Footballs) just dismantled many of these claims in an article at his site GotNews, revealing many of ...
That last bit is implicit praise of GotNews. Must check out GotNews later. First, let me pull this out of that big quote: "Breitbart is not “extreme” – even the best journalism at that site just recycles the same material VDARE.com has been pushing for more than a decade." Now, "material VDARE.com has been pushing" isn't praise, for sure, but that part does say that VDARE.com is a better journalistic site than Breitbart and imply that Breitbart is trying to make itself the Alt-Right's home online (see other quotes above implying the same thing).

A similar process is now going on, 25 years later, in the US. The totalitarian, united mainstream mass media, concentrated in a few (mainly Jewish) hands may yet lead the Americans to perdition. Ostensibly, Americans, sturdy individualists as they are, should understand that they are likely to lose their country. That the Coalition of Minorities will empower the Iron Heel of bankers, military and spooks. The experience of 1991 taught me that it is as difficult to fight the Masters of Discourse as it was for the children of Hameln to disregard their Piper. Still, this time the Crooked Men may yet lose just because they discarded the cloak of impartiality.

Michael Goodwin wrote: “The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America. The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretence of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent. Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.”

This does not mean all Trump’s strategies are perfect. His harping on the Muslim theme appears to be useless. Mind you, I am always against mass immigration, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist, and if the US – and other countries – will stop this modern slavery trade, I’d say Amen. But the US has no Muslim problem, and a very few Muslims at all. Obama regime did not allow Iraqi or Syrian refugees to come to its shores in substantial quantities. Ten thousand a year: why, that’s what Greece gets in a day!

Perhaps Trump hoped the Jewish supporters will flock to him, as American Jews embrace and finance every bloody-minded European anti-Muslim nationalist of Netherlands, Denmark or England. But this scheme misfired. Anti-Muslim Jews are plentiful in the US, but they cold-shouldered Trump, as Kevin MacDonald established. They want to spread distrust and hatred between the natives and the Muslims of Europe, but in the US? This is too close to home. Once your natives are made aware of a difference between a Muslim and a Christian, they can discover a difference between a Christian and a Jew. So, if Trump thought he will get Jewish support in exchange for anti-Muslim policies, he miscalculated.
:shock:

RadixJournal:
[url=http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/9/28/facing-the-future-as-a-minority]Facing the Future As a Minority
Richard B. Spencer · September 28, 2016

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world. It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy. We even, we should admit, get captivated by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectability; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time.

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course. Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White. Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless. Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two. Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go after announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

Our concerns are qualitative. As they should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe? Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t. I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa. We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism. It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political "reset button," this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other "right-wing" Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant. The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia). 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.


I think that's quite enough of that.

First search result looking for a reference to that heap of shit on breitbart:
Milo’s recent attempted hit job on me — “Jack Hunter: Anatomy of a Cuckening” at Breitbart — was a response to what he considered my attempted “takedown” of him at The Daily Beast with my piece, “Meet Milo Yiannopoulos, the Appealing Face of the Racist Alt-Right.”

I really wasn’t trying to demean Milo. I still think how he takes on the extreme left is great and hilarious. “Social Justice Warriors” are a plague on campuses across the country.

But I did want to warn young libertarians about the true nature of the alt-right.

I did want them to know that being alt-right also meant becoming something really nasty.

It turns you into an asshole.


It’s a movement that is perpetually somewhere between race-obsessed and explicitly racist — with pride.

I explained how the alt-right’s characteristic tribalism inevitably leads to racial collectivist thinking (the mirror image of social justice warriors’ left identity politics) and was the polar opposite of libertarianism, which emphasizes individual freedom and dignity.

Milo never addressed the philosophical part. Makes sense.

Stick to what you’re good at.

He did call me faggy.

He did contend that the alt-right wasn’t really racist, that I was just making excuses for my paleoconservative past to suck up the Basically Decent Republican “establishment” (because we all know how much the GOP establishment just adores my former bosses Ron and Rand Paul).

But also, strangely, still admits the alt-right is kind of racist and that he thinks that’s cool.

Anyone who doesn’t think it’s cool is a “cuck.”

When Barack Obama was elected president, I wrote a piece for the paleoconservative Taki’s Magazine called “Obama and Black Pride.” I wrote in January 2009, “The joy I see in my black neighbors and friends, seems to be a sense that a new level of respect, perhaps the greatest respect, has now been paid to them by their nation.”

All Americans should be happy for black Americans with the election of the first black president, despite any political disagreements, I said.

I was told that one of the leading paleoconservatives who contributed to Taki’s Magazine was mad about my piece.

Because I was being sympathetic to black Americans.

Seriously.

This well-respected paleocon was basically calling me a “cuck” before it was a thing.

I thought he was being a complete ass.

Today, I still agree with some of what paleoconservatives believed, particularly tempering individual liberty with a legitimate need for some collective goods.

Paleos tended to emphasize America’s cultural, religious, and constitutional heritage — but also its Southern, Northern and Midwestern diversity. Someone that many of us considered a pre-paleo of sorts was conservative icon Russell Kirk. His groundbreaking The Conservative Mind, published in 1953, even broke up American conservatism into not only different political and literary traditions, but regional ones as well.

Paleocons usually stressed culture first, which by definition is a collectivist dynamic — family, community and country.

Eventually, some paleocons began to take this collectivist thinking to the extreme end of race.

Most have dead-ended today in what’s become the alt-right.

I don’t advertise their names because they don’t deserve the publicity.

That’s what Milo does.

It’s one thing to say you’re not afraid of Basic Human Decency and are willing to discuss racial issues. It’s another thing to embrace racial hatred in the name of being politically incorrect.

The alt-right doesn’t seem to know the difference.

Today’s “newsletters” would be blogs and Twitter accounts, where alt-righters try to feel better about themselves at the expense of some of the most historically powerless people in our society, racial minorities.

Not every, and indeed not most, of the paleoconservatives of the last 20 years could fairly be called racist, but some did legitimately become that eventually. There’s so much baggage associated with “paleoconservatism” as a term and movement that I simply don’t want anything to do with it anymore.

Take and learn from the good (and there’s plenty of that too). Leave behind the bad.

The first time I heard about an actual website called “alternative right” I was told it wasn’t much different from a neo-Nazi page.

I wondered what in God’s name that had to do with the Ronpaul libertarianism.

It had nothing to do with it.

It certainly had nothing to do with me.

It’s extremely insulting and dismissive to put someone’s present in your past. The question for the reader is whether you grew or “cucked” out.

It serves Milo and the alt-right’s purposes to assume the latter.

No matter how bad the left is, not everything about the right is good, and the alt-right seems to take great pride in representing the worst of it.

Taboo smashing is great. Smash away. But it can be a gateway to worse things.

Like becoming a racist asshole.

Right now, some see an opportunity to pull young rightists back toward the darkness.

Fuck that.

And fuck anyone who helps it happen.
That's ... really not praise of the alt-right. Of course, Milo's on the Breitbart staff and Jack Hunter isn't, so one could take Milo's piece as more representative of editorial position than Jack's, but that wasn't a pro-alt-right piece, and Breitbart ran it.

What other sites came up in that? VDARE.com did. Oh boy ...

"VDARE - premier news outlet for patriotic immigration reform"

This is going to be UGLY.

Yup. UGLY.

The Zume Pizza company of Mountain View, California, announced recently that it has sliced labor expenses by half through its implementation of robot chefs in the kitchen.

It’s helpful when a business tells the public straightaway in dollar terms how much money it is saving by ditching human employees and replacing them with robots. Zume owners chatter about “co-bots” aka collaborative robots but clearly that’s just a ploy when the company says elsewhere that the machines are brought in to cut costs, period.

This application of automation underlines the fact that low-skilled, repetitive jobs are disappearing rapidly. As a result, America does not need to continue immigrating millions of uneducated, unemployable foreigners, particularly with more than 90 million citizens not engaged in the labor force. But low-skill foreigners are exactly the sort crossing Obama’s open southern border all the time.
Yup. UGLY.

Not every European leader is a globalist fool who embraces open borders for even historic enemies like Muslims. One of the strongest friends of the nation state and western freedom is Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

On Sunday, Hungarians voted in a referendum that asked: “Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary even without the approval of the National Assembly?”

As Breitbart reported on the outcome: Hungary Referendum: EU Humiliated as 95 Percent Say NO to Migrant Quotas.
Oh, so they link to Breitbart happily enough. Another site adds a detail or two: The Hungarian government has failed to achieve a referendum result rejecting EU-imposed quotas on migrant numbers, after an insufficient number of people turned out to vote. With 99.25 per cent of the votes counted, more than 3.2 million voters — or 98.3 per cent of those who cast valid ballots — backed the government. But turnout stood at 43.9 per cent, the National Election Office said. Fifty-percent-plus-one-vote was needed for the referendum to be valid.

Back to VDARE:
Yesterday in Crisis Over, UN Approves Somali Refugee Repatriation. Minneapolis Waives Their Rent I noted that the situation in Somalia has improved so much that United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) has been acquiescing for some time in host counties repatriating Somali refugees. Also that Minneapolis has been log-rolled into waiving most of the rent from Somali Public Housing residents who want to spend long sojourns in their homeland. Apparently the poor things cannot collect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are abroad.

Fortuitously last night I received the valuable weekly update from Quartz Africa with the helpful news Tourists are heading to Somalia to see the ruins of a two-decade civil war By Abdi Latif Dahir September 27, 2016.

America should immediately

Shut down any more Somali refugee admissions.
Suspend the issuing of U.S. Passports to Somali “refugees” on the expedited path to citizenship their status currently gives them.

These steps will not be taken and Somalis will be discouraged from going home because the real purpose of importing them was to Elect a New People.

Anyone under the delusion the returning Somalis will harbor kind thoughts about America should scan the hate-filled (and not very rational) comment thread in this YouTube of a talk by a British tourist about his visit to the lighthouse on the very tip of the Horn of Africa (erected by the Italians, and of course defunct).
YouTube comments, the best place to look for an understanding of humanity!


I don't think Breitbart's actually endorsing their positions all that hard or out of any real sympathy at all. I think Breitbart's seen that a lot of people without AdBlock are into that racist shite and is keen to get their clicks and the related revenue. They're not selling racism because they love it. They're selling racism because it's profitable.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

So, holy crap that's a link dump.

A. You link the article under discussion. Cool. We already covered that. It's a tiny mention in what is clearly a "look at the variety of the republican party piece". It isn't even an exploration of that ideology, let alone an endorsement.

B. You link a ridiculous amount of other papers entirely that link that article. ....kay.

You make a very good point that the media, as a whole, does hate Breitbart. You are not, however, adding any new evidence of Breitbart's beliefs. At least, if there is anything new that actually shows evidence of the claimed "racial tiers" supposedly endorsed, it's buried in the linkdump of an entire google search page.

So, I have absolutely no idea how any of this gets tied back into Trump, and the election, save for on the most generic levels.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:51 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.


The MSM* finally got caught up with this thread:

Donald Trump is a ‘threat to the planet’, says world-leading climate change scientist

In an article on the EcoWatch website headlined, Yes, Donald Trump is a threat to the planet, Professor Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, wrote: “In just a matter of weeks, we will be confronted with a critical decision.

“It is not mere hyperbole to assert that we are facing a make-or-break election as far as climate change is concerned.

“In the current presidential contest, we could not have a more stark choice before us, between a candidate who rejects the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening and a candidate who embraces the role of a price on carbon and incentives for renewable energy.

“If you care about the planet, the choice would seem clear. If the appropriate catch-phrase for the 1992 election was ‘It’s The Economy Stupid!’ then this time around it ought to be ‘It’s the planet stupid!’”


* Does that count as MSM?
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You make a very good point that the media, as a whole, does hate Breitbart. You are not, however, adding any new evidence of Breitbart's beliefs. At least, if there is anything new that actually shows evidence of the claimed "racial tiers" supposedly endorsed, it's buried in the linkdump of an entire google search page.

So, I have absolutely no idea how any of this gets tied back into Trump, and the election, save for on the most generic levels.
That was pretty much the conclusion I reached. I read a lot of pages I didn't quote, and came to the conclusion that Breitbart are happy to be described as "the alt-right's go-to one-stop self-affirmation shop" in the hope that the alt-right will believe it and the rest of the world is happy to call them a bunch of click-hungry assholes with the journalistic integrity of a week-old squashed toad.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/5/donald-trump-tim-kaine-constant-interruptions-shou/

Donald Trump: Tim Kaine’s ‘constant interruptions’ ‘should not have been allowed’


I have to say, this article is probably what Tim Kaine was going for.

Tim Kaine was very awkwardly attacking and interrupting throughout last night's debate. And nobody gives a damn about it. But by getting Trump to tweet about the interruptions, they can claim moral high-ground in the first debate, and probably setup well for the 2nd debate.

I didn't actually watch the debate, but the commentary I'm reading suggests that Pence looked better on stage. But it looks like Kaine might have got the result he was looking for anyway: some manufactured outrage from Trump and a bunch of footage of Pence denying that Trump said stuff that he said.

I don't know how much the VP debate itself tends to affect that polls, but if it's not that much then this could turn out to be a tactical victory for Clinton/Kaine.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:I don't know how much the VP debate itself tends to affect that polls, but if it's not that much then this could turn out to be a tactical victory for Clinton/Kaine.


I believe common wisdom is that the Veep debates are usually distinctly second rate(and even normal debates often fail to budge the polls), so it might be as you propose. A means to manufacture footage for embarrassing ads, more than for the night's effect. Could be a good long term gamble.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The fact that you believe you made a strawman argument that was really good does not in any way circumvent the fact that you're creating an argument of your own to knock down, rather than addressing mine.
.....
You're honestly baffled that anyone might disagree with you, because you're so certain you must be correct?
Hippo created the steel-man, not to knock down, but to try to explore what your actual opinion is.

You have disagreed with Hippo's position; you have disagreed with the opposite of Hippo's position.

Hippo isn't baffled that you how the position you do, he's baffled as to which position you hold.
We're getting off on a side track here
Right, I believe we were discussing the pricing of generic versus brand medications?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The fact that you believe you made a strawman argument that was really good does not in any way circumvent the fact that you're creating an argument of your own to knock down, rather than addressing mine.
.....
You're honestly baffled that anyone might disagree with you, because you're so certain you must be correct?
Hippo created the steel-man, not to knock down, but to try to explore what your actual opinion is.

You have disagreed with Hippo's position; you have disagreed with the opposite of Hippo's position.

Hippo isn't baffled that you how the position you do, he's baffled as to which position you hold.
We're getting off on a side track here
Right, I believe we were discussing the pricing of generic versus brand medications?


Hippo's position is that if Trump is elected, we are in significant danger of internment camps as a result. His proposed reasoning stems from a dislike of someone in Trump's campaign who used to run a newspaper, that at one point mentioned a racist in an article. He's also argued from ignorance. The "we can't know for sure" approach.

I hold that we are not. But that Trump poses significant other dangers. Also, that the supposed rationale for danger is obviously not reasonable. Arguing from ignorance is also not evidence.

This difference has been quite consistent. There has been no "opposite".

His "ironman" approach is nothing but constructing an argument to knock down. It does not differ from strawmanning in any manner save for how impressive HE thinks it is. This is an utterly ridiculous standard. One cannot claim that one's arguments are really, really good, and by so doing, force others to change their opinions or argue how you choose.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:His "ironman" approach is nothing but constructing an argument to knock down.
"to knock down" is ascribing a purpose to an agent. Fortunately, we can simply ask the agent his intent.

One hundred dollars says if we ask Hippo "Was you intent with the steelman construction to A) argue against Tyndmyr's position, or B) determine his position?" the answer will be B. (I will also pay out if Hippo responds with "Neither A nor B adequately represents my intent")
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:15 pm UTC

The important part of a strawman argument is not the knocking of it down, but of the misrepresentation.

The exercise of thinking of the strongest form of an argument you can may be interesting, but if it's not the actual argument presented, it is still misrepresentation. It is an argument you have invented, not the other person's actual position. Claiming better motivation is all well and good, but it's still a farce.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:42 pm UTC

That's a perfectly fine thing to be concerned about, but it seems to me that Hippo made it perfectly clear what he said was only his guess at your position.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

It can hardly be only that, given that I'd not mentioned FDR prior to that point.

I believe my reply adequately summarized that this was not my view. It wasn't wrong, entirely. Obviously, Trump and FDR are different. However, that obviously cannot have been my point, yes? This is all imagined "best version" according to him, not anything I'd ever said. Imagined "best version" and what I said are simply not the same things at all.

There's nothing particularly wrong with hypothetical arguments or summarizing someone's arguments, but you can't very well mix the two concepts without producing something that fails at one of the two.

And I'm baffled that Hippo thinks that only problem is that he believes his idea was really good. Just because an argument is "in my favor" and you like does not make it mine.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And a summary of the alt right does not constitute an endorsement of every part of it. They mention those people in passing, in the context of summarizing a group. The point they are trying to make is one of diverse viewpoints, not of endorsing a hierarchy of races. Because, holy shit, those are very different things. You aren't providing a citation for your actual claim.
Human biodiversity creates a hierarchy of races; for example, it proposes that black people have distinct mental differences (rooted in genetics and biology) from white people. Sailer is actually the one who coined the term. That article describes him and this movement as striding 'eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences', and as a member of 'an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus'. I think that's a pretty clear endorsement? At the very least, it's a hearty fist-bump.
Tyndmyr wrote:The fact that you believe you made a strawman argument that was really good does not in any way circumvent the fact that you're creating an argument of your own to knock down, rather than addressing mine.
? By their very definition, strawmen arguments aren't good. That's what makes them strawmen. A really good strawman argument isn't a strawman; strawman arguments are crummy by definition.
Tyndmyr wrote:You're honestly baffled that anyone might disagree with you, because you're so certain you must be correct?

My god, maybe you understand Trump after all.
That feels unfair, on a lot of levels? I'm trying hard not to be contentious with you. I'm confused by a lot of what you're saying, and I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. I'm sorry if I'm failing at that, but I don't respond well to insults; is there any way I can adjust my tone to avoid putting you in positions where you feel a desire to use them?
Tyndmyr wrote:Cool, you've easily established that this Sailer chap sounds racist. That particular quote sounds like he's faulting education, but it's still a pretty terrible ideology.
Maybe I should have picked a better quote? The word 'native' is key there; Sailer is talking about the intrinsic intelligence of black people, not their education. He believes that black people are -- because of genetics and biology -- inherently less intelligent than white people. Though he would probably phrase it as them having a 'different' type of intelligence.

To put this another way: He believes that the difference in IQ scores we see among race demographics does have something to do with social pressures, but also has just as much to do with biological and genetic pressures (I believe he's on record for claiming it's about '50-50').
Tyndmyr wrote:However, the link now goes from him, to Bannon, to Trump, and the only evidence you have is an offhand mention in an article. This is conspiratorial as hell. This dude doesn't control shit, and the idea that this ideology is what'll be running the country if Trump gets elected is not supported by what you have presented.
I'm not concerned about Sailer specifically controlling something; I'm more concerned that Trump feels comfortable working with a guy who's newspaper endorses a literal racist philosophy. It leaves me thinking that there's a not-insignificant chance that Trump will be comfortable putting people like that in positions of power in the future.

This isn't even a partisan thing; I don't think there's any parallel in the past decade in American politics. It'd be like hiring David Duke's publicist as your PR guy. Who would do that?
Tyndmyr wrote:I believe my reply adequately summarized that this was not my view. It wasn't wrong, entirely. Obviously, Trump and FDR are different. However, that obviously cannot have been my point, yes? This is all imagined "best version" according to him, not anything I'd ever said. Imagined "best version" and what I said are simply not the same things at all.
I only brought FDR up to provide some contrast for what condition internment camps did happen under -- because I thought it helped emphasize the extreme conditions that were required for American internment camps to occur (and how far away from those conditions a Trump Presidency would be).

So, if we remove all references to FDR from my summary -- thereby reducing it to 'Trump lacks the will, focus, discipline, political capital, political solidarity, and possibly even the desire to produce internment camps', you would say that's a fair summary of your point?
Tyndmyr wrote:And I'm baffled that Hippo thinks that only problem is that he believes his idea was really good.
Just to clarify: That is not at all what I think. I think that I don't know what the problem is; hence the bafflement.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armanant and 11 guests