Drunkard's Walk Forums

After the deluge, the flood

Quote:It all points to a Republican civil war that is, if anything, just
getting under way. “The fight you’re seeing now is a preview of what
you’re going to see on steroids after the election,” says Alex Conant, a
Republican strategist and former adviser to Marco Rubio. “The real
debate is about what the Republican Party represents and what its values
are.” Bill Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts who is
now campaigning against Trump from his perch as the vice-presidential
nominee on the Libertarian Party ticket, is even more direct. “There’s
going to be a schism,” he says. Already Trump has torn apart the
conservative movement. A generation of rising stars, such as Ryan and
Rubio, may find their futures tainted by Trump–from their failure to
enlist in his army, or perhaps from their failure to take up arms
against him. Or both

.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

If Canada's experience is anything to go by, make sure your computers are Y2K-compliant. I know we had to do that during our "splinter the right and unite it again" process.

To us, this would be "politics happens, film at eleven" stuff if it weren't for the fact that you have both nukes and fat wallets.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

I'll just leave this here.


--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

state of play right now

Right now it looks like Trump is betting on winning based on remaining these states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The way it looks, Trump's campaign has given up on winning and more on damage control. A blow out would give the lie to a "rigged" election and give Clinton a mandate. That would depend on flipping the Senate. Maybe the House as well. 
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

it turns out that Sweet Meteor O' Death has a Twitter account.

I'll just leave this here.

CBC: Donald Trump is giving real capitalists a bad name
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

I came across this passage by Douglas Adams that sums up elections pretty well:

Quote:...On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

The takeaway from the final debate:
Trump the sore loser
Really, he won't abide by the outcome? Whoever voted for this guy in the primaries had been sold a bill of goods.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

ordnance11 Wrote:The takeaway from the final debate:

Trump the sore loser

Really, he won't abide by the outcome? Whoever voted for this guy in the primaries had been sold a bill of goods.

Wasn't he the only one who didn't promise to abide by the outcome in the primaries? Why are people so surprised by this?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

Quote:robkelk wrote:

---

Quote:ordnance11 wrote:

---

The takeaway from the final debate:
Trump the sore loser

Really, he won't abide by the outcome? Whoever voted for this guy in the primaries had been sold a bill of goods.

Wasn't he the only one who didn't promise to abide by the outcome in the primaries? Why are people so surprised by this?

Yes he did. The reason is what you said. It was the primaries. Mudslinging is considered de rigeur. The expectation is that you at least moderate your views to grow your base. Trump has done no such thing. He had gone the way of Breitbart instead. Pandering to the base instead. I keep wondering if Trump is a DNC black flag operation. If you have to do everything to do by the numbers to lose the general election, Trump has done it.
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

Quote:ordnance11 wrote:I keep wondering if Trump is a DNC black flag operation. If you have to do everything to do by the numbers to lose the general election, Trump has done it.

I don't think even the DNC is stupid enough to sabotage the upcoming presidency this badly (although looking at the DNC, I admit I could be wrong).  There are Trumpite whackjobs already vowing to resort to violence, to "take their country back," if Clinton is elected.  Even if there were a complete landslide for Clinton, these crazies would likely regard that as proof that Democrats stole the election.  I am NOT looking forward to the next several years.  The USA is likely to be a very self-destructive place unless an attack from outside is able to unite us — and I'm not at all sure even that will be enough....
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

Quote:DHBirr wrote:

---

Quote:ordnance11 wrote:I keep wondering if Trump is a DNC black flag operation. If you have to do everything to do by the numbers to lose the general election, Trump has done it.

I don't think even the DNC is stupid enough to sabotage the upcoming presidency this badly (although looking at the DNC, I admit I could be wrong).  There are Trumpite whackjobs already vowing to resort to violence, to "take their country back," if Clinton is elected.  Even if there were a complete landslide for Clinton, these crazies would likely regard that as proof that Democrats stole the election.  I am NOT looking forward to the next several years.  The USA is likely to be a very self-destructive place unless an attack from outside is able to unite us — and I'm not at all sure even that will be enough....

*Puts on tin foil hat*
If you want to give the Democrats a working majority in the House and Senate, scaring the electorate into giving one party a mandate to govern is the best thing. Because the GOP has shown no interest in governing since 2010. Ole snapping turtle had vowed that Obama is going to be a 1 term president. That failed. So it became, "No working with the administration until we elect one of our own into the White House."  Well, it looks like the current GOP nominee is not going to get it. So it's back to the previous line. "No working with the administration until we elect one of our own into the White House."  Well, it looks like the current GOP nominee is not going to get it. So it's back to the previous line. "No working with the administration until we elect one of our own into the White House."  Be interesting if a Democrat wins in 2020, the GOP will probably implode at that point.
GOP is crying to split the ballot as to check a Clinton II presidency. Check means gridlock. If you like gridlock, by all means do it. But don't cry when the government is paralyzed because one side is not interesting in governing. You might as well give the other side the mandate and see what they do until the mid terms.
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

The thing is, Trump looks so catastrophic to those of us on the left that running a black flag op could never be worth it in terms of long-term goals.  The anti-democratic sentiment that is being stirred up, along with the racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual tensions are not a thing that will go away easily.  In retrospect, I think I would have preferred 4-8 years under Romney than having Trump as a candidate for president.  The other half of the statement assumes they'll value long-term goals above short-term goals, but really we're talking about Hillary and Obama here.
There is some vague talk that Steve Bannon would rather purify the Republican party than win, and maybe that's true.  But at this point, I think everything is just unfolding on its own.  No one is in control on the GOP side, least of all Trump who can't even control himself.
I have been predicting a political realignment in the US for quite some time -- since about 2004, but it looks like it's really happening this time.  I'm starting to wonder if what we're going to be left with is an urban party and a rural party, with suburbia being the swing vote.  That's kind of what Japan is like, and it's definitely what California has looked like post-Governator.  Even O.C. is expected to go Democratic this year.  But if the urban-rural split is true, this is the most terrible strategy ever for the GOP, because the demographics are moving strongly towards urban growth and rural decline.
Maybe rural decline is the other big story of this election.  Trade protectionism is not going to bring the manufacturing jobs back.  Nothing will bring the manufacturing jobs back.  Manufacturing is coming back, but most of the old jobs are getting taken by robots.  Even more jobs will be taken by robots in the next decade, particularly in the transportation sector.  The only solution is to come up with new jobs, because the old ones are not coming back.
Anyway, the news today is that both Clinton and Trump gave a comedy monologue at the Al Smith dinner.  This is a real upper-crust fundraiser with a Roman Catholic audience in white tie.  So a pretty conservative bunch, right?  But pretty much exactly what you'd expect would happen if you gave a microphone to a boor who is way out of his social class in fact happened -- the oafishness rises to the top.  The good jokes came up front, but eventually we got the Trump sense of humor -- meanspirited, bully humor.  It was not received well.  While Hillary Clinton is no comedian, she is funny, and it showed through.
If you want to look into tinfoil hat territory, look at Evan McMullin's candidacy.  OK, so he's Mormon and a Congressional staffer who saw Trump in the race and decided, rightfully so, that even he was a better candidate than that thing.  But McMuffin was also a CIA agent.   And there's an outside chance of him winning the whole thing, a much greater chance than Gary Johnson has.  With a CIA White House, at least we'd be better able to confront the KGB Kremlin.
-- ∇×V

Quote:The thing is, Trump looks so catastrophic to those of us on the left that running a black flag op could never be worth it in terms of long-term goals.  The anti-democratic sentiment that is being stirred up, along with the racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual tensions are not a thing that will go away easily.  In retrospect, I think I would have preferred 4-8 years under Romney than having Trump as a candidate for president.  The other half of the statement assumes they'll value long-term goals above short-term goals, but really we're talking about Hillary and Obama here.

Go back to July when Trump announced his candidacy. People (including me) thought it was a publicity stunt. No way he can the GOP nominee, much less President. I believe that includes the rest of the field. Bush, Rubio, Cruz et al. And when he started spouting these racist, xenophobic and bigoted talk, what did they do?  Became his enablers. That's the reason I have the tin foil conspiracy about Trump being a DNC back flag operation. He has never been a GOP true believer. The way he came the GOP nominee remind me of Senator Claire McCaskill's re election campaign when she backed a right wing challenger to the presumptive GOP candidate for her seat. Because he was the easier candidate to beat in a general election campaign. That's way I'm disappointed with wikileaks and the FSB. If they had put out emails stating the Trump is in cahoots with the DNC to put Hillary in the White House, the chaos would had been good for lulz. 
If Cruz and Rubio decide to run again in 2020, it will be interesting to see what excuses they will have for supporting Trump. I believe Kasich is going to have a better chance of winning the nomination in 2020.
4-8 years under Romney would have meant 4-8 years of Bush II. If you ever read his transition program, his plan is to treat the U.S. government like a company he's about to raid. Privatize government functions that is remotely profitable or could turn a profit. And for provide 0 funding for the rest. Except for Departments like the DOD. 

Quote:I have been predicting a political realignment in the US for quite some time -- since about 2004, but it looks like it's really happening this time.  I'm starting to wonder if what we're going to be left with is an urban party and a rural party, with suburbia being the swing vote.  That's kind of what Japan is like, and it's definitely what California has looked like post-Governator.  Even O.C. is expected to go Democratic this year.  But if the urban-rural split is true, this is the most terrible strategy ever for the GOP, because the demographics are moving strongly towards urban growth and rural decline.

Go back further to the mid-90's when then Governor Pete Wilson had Prop 187 passed.  Cali always had a predominantly Hispanic population. But that didn't translate into political power because of low voter participation. Prop 187 changed that. Now Hispanics are voting in greater numbers. And they're not voting GOP. End result? The only "red"  California districts are those in the interior. Making California a solid blue state.
You are correct in demographics, but I see it more due to a diverse ethnic makeup in the U.S. now . The GOP is becoming the party of old, angry white folks (mostly men). And you may had noticed the GOP had been doubling down since 2008. and losing each time. It is becoming more and more alt-right. Moderates are being driven out. I was a Republican until I found out the GOP has left me. Especially during my time in Alabama. So now I've been voting Democrat.

 
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

I just looked at the Poll Tracker page for this election.

Poll Tracker does exactly what it says on the tin - polls are tracked, weighted so that newer polls with larger samples are given more importance, and aggregated. It has a pretty good record of calling elections. (One can also play with it for what-if scenarios -- I managed to come up with a tie scenario by flipping only five "battlefield" states.)

I find it interesting that Trump has always been trailing in the polls by at least 1% of the total votes, and has usually been 2% or more behind Hillary since the tracking began on June 15. (That 2% number is important, because that's the margin of error.) Usually one sees the front-runners trading places in the lead a few times - that hasn't happened in this election.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

Quote:robkelk wrote:

---

I just looked at the Poll Tracker page for this election.

Poll Tracker does exactly what it says on the tin - polls are tracked, weighted so that newer polls with larger samples are given more importance, and aggregated. It has a pretty good record of calling elections. (One can also play with it for what-if scenarios -- I managed to come up with a tie scenario by flipping only five "battlefield" states.)

I find it interesting that Trump has always been trailing in the polls by at least 1% of the total votes, and has usually been 2% or more behind Hillary since the tracking began on June 15. (That 2% number is important, because that's the margin of error.) Usually one sees the front-runners trading places in the lead a few times - that hasn't happened in this election.

If the pattern holds as with 2012, 1% percent ahead means 4% ahead in the polls, which means a comfortable 300 plus electoral votes for the Democrats. The GOP is acknowledging Clinton as at the 300 vote mark maybe even going to 350-400 electoral vote range. Arizona, Georgia, Florida and Texas are in play for the Democrats. Does anyone realize the significance? Deep Red states who had been reliably GOP since Reagan's time are now in play! Just look at where Michelle Obama is being deployed.  Now that's not just a win. That's a blowout. You'll have to look at Reagan's campaign in 1976 for a similar result. 
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

So Trump not necessarily agreeing to accept the results immediately is wrong? Then how was Al Gore and John Kerry right? They both disputed their respective election results. I guess it goes back to a comment I made yesterday, when the Democrats do it, its the same old thing, when the Republican does it, it's NEWS.
 

Quote:Rajvik wrote:

---

So Trump not necessarily agreeing to accept the results immediately is wrong? Then how was Al Gore and John Kerry right? They both disputed their respective election results. I guess it goes back to a comment I made yesterday, when the Democrats do it, its the same old thing, when the Republican does it, it's NEWS.

Well, did John Kerry or Al Gore dispute the results before the voting has even begun. Recall the dispute Gore had with the Florida electoral count.
bush won Florida and the election by 532 votes
And the Gore or Kerry say they will not recognize the results? Because Bush II did become president. With all the attendant results. The rest of the GOP disavowed Trump. Are you going to stand by what he said? You may want to look back at the news of that day rather than listening to the echo chamber. I wouldn't be surprised one of these days when you say the Holocaust never happened and that the ocean is not gushing up the sewers in Miami at high tide.
Edit: Besides, it's been known ever since the start of the election season that Trump was the best matchup for Clinton. Even Cruz had an even chance at the start.So what did the GPO primary voters do again? So, if the blame game has to start, start from either the top or bottom and work your way up or down.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

Trump's presented his platform for his first hundred days.

No surprises, except that it looks like he'll have time in that very busy period to sue the women who've accused him of sexual harassment. There's nothing like having your priorities straight...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

Ordinance, no disrespect intended here, but you might want to listen to something other than bought and paid for news agencies. Considering the things that Wiki leaks has been pouring out over the past week i wouldn't want to be even close to being associated with the Clinton campaign when the dust clears. The blatant corruption that is the Democrat party in the upper echelons just begs for a house cleaning. Before you ask what i'm talking about, I'm talking about the clear cut case of rigging the system against Bernie Sanders, (and i thank them for it because quite frankly the republicans would have had a harder time beating him rather than Hillary) and the more recent Prodject Veritas film of the intentional baiting and starting of fights by Democrat surrogates directly connectable to the Hillary campaign, (three levels removed for deniability but caught on tape admitting that Hillary and the campaign knew) shows a level of corruption that is unforgivable.
 

Y'know, I keep seeing posts everywhere about how WikiLeaks proves some thing or another, but I never see any links to the WikiLeaks documents that supposedly prove these things. WikiLeaks allows for "deep linking" right to a document, so the links should be easy enough to provide ... if, in fact, the documents exist.

And that comment is addressed to both sides.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

well here is the general wiki leaks site for Clinton E-Mails, and here is the one for the DNC Emails but the reason you don't really see the emails or direct links to the same is that they area bitch to sort through so most people leave it for the groups who can throw bodies at it instead of trying to find it themselves

Edit: Ord, i actually paid attention to this part of your post, 

Quote: I wouldn't be surprised one of these days when you say the Holocaust never happened and that the ocean is not gushing up the sewers in Miami at high tide.

and considering my Grandfather chased Patton's 8th around France, no, i know the Holocaust was a real thing, but Miami's sewers being washed out by the high tide was actually a design in the system to keep them clean rather than the result of of global warming, why don't you go find a history of the state of Florida, which happens to be my home state, or maybe the design history of Miami, and take a gander 
 

Quote:Rajvik wrote:

---

well here is the general wiki leaks site for Clinton E-Mails, and here is the one for the DNC Emails but the reason you don't really see the emails or direct links to the same is that they area bitch to sort through so most people leave it for the groups who can throw bodies at it instead of trying to find it themselves

Edit: Ord, i actually paid attention to this part of your post, 

Quote: I wouldn't be surprised one of these days when you say the Holocaust never happened and that the ocean is not gushing up the sewers in Miami at high tide.

and considering my Grandfather chased Patton's 8th around France, no, i know the Holocaust was a real thing, but Miami's sewers being washed out by the high tide was actually a design in the system to keep them clean rather than the result of of global warming, why don't you go find a history of the state of Florida, which happens to be my home state, or maybe the design history of Miami, and take a gander 

Actually Patton commanded 3rd Army. 8th Army was in the Pacific Theater under General Robert Eichelberger. So must be one hell of a chase.
And to the ocean water gushing up the street of Miami. I stand corrected. It's Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale.
News footage
Edit: And you can find lots more on youtube
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

Trump news, not election news: New hotels won't have the Trump name on them
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

Quote:robkelk wrote:

---

Trump news, not election news: New hotels won't have the Trump name on them

Well, because his supporters are not rich enough to stay in them. I'm afraid Trump will have to do with his new hotel in D.C., not the White House. Provided it turns a profit.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell