Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
My guess is that either the signs will be shortly out or most people are as bummed about the choices as I am.
Also depends on who you support and where you live. There are some pretty sad stories going around. One family here in North Texas had a Clinton sign: it was stolen and vandalized a few times, and also their dog was poisoned.
So I'm sure as hell not putting out any signs.
I lived in Carbondale, Illinois for the first half of the year and it is a very very liberal town. We had a Bernie sign out in our yard, it was stolen within a week. Some people are messed up.
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
My guess is that either the signs will be shortly out or most people are as bummed about the choices as I am.
Also depends on who you support and where you live. There are some pretty sad stories going around. One family here in North Texas had a Clinton sign: it was stolen and vandalized a few times, and also their dog was poisoned.
So I'm sure as hell not putting out any signs.
That's pretty much the reason why I don't have bumper stickers on my car, for anything.
Only thing I'd get is something like:
"Don't blame me... I voted for Gary"
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
My guess is that either the signs will be shortly out or most people are as bummed about the choices as I am.
Also depends on who you support and where you live. There are some pretty sad stories going around. One family here in North Texas had a Clinton sign: it was stolen and vandalized a few times, and also their dog was poisoned.
So I'm sure as hell not putting out any signs.
That's pretty much the reason why I don't have bumper stickers on my car, for anything.
Only thing I'd get is something like: "Don't blame me... I voted for Gary"
If Trump wins, I'll still blame you.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
RCP has Trump leading Hillary in MO since the summer... So... eh.
I voted for Rubio in the Primary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/15 16:22:04
I lived in Carbondale, Illinois for the first half of the year and it is a very very liberal town. We had a Bernie sign out in our yard, it was stolen within a week. Some people are messed up.
Prestor Jon wrote: Meh, your individual vote isn't going to factor into who wins or loses anyway. At least for a third party you are more likely to make a difference in whether or not the third party meets the threshold to get federal funding and a spot on the ballot next election cycle.
Which still isn't going to see 3rd party president in any time soon with current system now is it? Has there even been 3rd party president in the USA? Don't recall top of my head one though albeit I don't know remember all presidents beyond '80's.
Prestor Jon wrote: Meh, your individual vote isn't going to factor into who wins or loses anyway. At least for a third party you are more likely to make a difference in whether or not the third party meets the threshold to get federal funding and a spot on the ballot next election cycle.
Which still isn't going to see 3rd party president in any time soon with current system now is it? Has there even been 3rd party president in the USA? Don't recall top of my head one though albeit I don't know remember all presidents beyond '80's.
It's not about winning the presidency this year with a 3rd party it's about helping to make more parties viable and casting a vote for somebody besides Trump and Clinton. I'm not enthusiastic about any candidate running but helping a 3rd party hit the 5% threshold is more valuable to me than being one of the electorate that the 2 main parties take for granted.
Prestor Jon wrote: Meh, your individual vote isn't going to factor into who wins or loses anyway. At least for a third party you are more likely to make a difference in whether or not the third party meets the threshold to get federal funding and a spot on the ballot next election cycle.
Which still isn't going to see 3rd party president in any time soon with current system now is it? Has there even been 3rd party president in the USA? Don't recall top of my head one though albeit I don't know remember all presidents beyond '80's.
I think the closest we've come is Teddy's Bull Moose Party, when he came in 2nd in 1912, with 27% of the vote, beating the incumbent even.
Prestor Jon wrote: Meh, your individual vote isn't going to factor into who wins or loses anyway. At least for a third party you are more likely to make a difference in whether or not the third party meets the threshold to get federal funding and a spot on the ballot next election cycle.
Which still isn't going to see 3rd party president in any time soon with current system now is it? Has there even been 3rd party president in the USA? Don't recall top of my head one though albeit I don't know remember all presidents beyond '80's.
It's not about winning the presidency this year with a 3rd party it's about helping to make more parties viable and casting a vote for somebody besides Trump and Clinton. I'm not enthusiastic about any candidate running but helping a 3rd party hit the 5% threshold is more valuable to me than being one of the electorate that the 2 main parties take for granted.
Prestor Jon wrote: Meh, your individual vote isn't going to factor into who wins or loses anyway. At least for a third party you are more likely to make a difference in whether or not the third party meets the threshold to get federal funding and a spot on the ballot next election cycle.
Which still isn't going to see 3rd party president in any time soon with current system now is it? Has there even been 3rd party president in the USA? Don't recall top of my head one though albeit I don't know remember all presidents beyond '80's.
It's not about winning the presidency this year with a 3rd party it's about helping to make more parties viable and casting a vote for somebody besides Trump and Clinton. I'm not enthusiastic about any candidate running but helping a 3rd party hit the 5% threshold is more valuable to me than being one of the electorate that the 2 main parties take for granted.
But if those 3rd parties aren't going to be in for a real ability to affect things what good the 5% does except fill pockets of those party leaders...
The only way for 3rd parties to gain the ability to affect things is to grow. Getting federal funding helps them grow. Independents and 3rd party candidates have had successful statewide campaigns. Bernie Sanders isn't technically a Democrat and he beat Hillary in several states.
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
There's one yard sign in my neighborhood and it's for a mayoral candidate that I know nothing about. Our dedicated Democrat family just away so there probably won't be any Clinton yard signs since they're gone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/15 17:52:11
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
There's one yard sign in my neighborhood and it's for a mayoral candidate that I know nothing about. Our dedicated Democrat family just away so there probably won't be any Clinton yard signs since they're gone.
National politics? I haven't seen jack.... but, I wonder if I'm just habitually ignoring those...
Local/State politics? Man... Missouri is littered with them in the St. Louis area.
Ouze wrote: I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.
There's one yard sign in my neighborhood and it's for a mayoral candidate that I know nothing about. Our dedicated Democrat family just away so there probably won't be any Clinton yard signs since they're gone.
National politics? I haven't seen jack.... but, I wonder if I'm just habitually ignoring those...
Local/State politics? Man... Missouri is littered with them in the St. Louis area.
Same here. In the development across the street there's 1 Trump sign and 1 Johnson sign, but lots of yard signs about zoning issues, state races and municipal races. I still see a lot of Bernie bumper sticks more than any other candidate by a wide margin but there's definitely been less overt support shown by the public for any candidate than there was back in 2012.
Missouri's Republican-led Legislature used its supermajority Wednesday to significantly loosen the state's gun laws and potentially tighten its voting requirements as lawmakers overrode numerous vetoes of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The sweeping guns legislation would allow most adults to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit while also expanding people's right to defend themselves both in public and private places. The elections law change would require people to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls starting in 2017, if voters also approve a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
Both measures passed with more than the required two-thirds majority in each chamber as Republicans shut off Democratic discussion and enacted the laws on largely party-line votes.
The Republican supermajorities added to Nixon's record as the most overridden governor in Missouri history, a distinction made possible by an era of extreme political division in the Capitol. Heading into Wednesday, lawmakers had successfully overridden Nixon on 83 bills and budget expenditures over his two terms in office — nearly four times more overrides than the combined total for all other governors dating back to 1820 when Missouri was still a territory.
Nixon vetoed about two dozen measures this year, including ones already overridden this spring blocking pay raises for home-care workers and changing the state's school funding requirements.
Among the additional bills overridden Wednesday is one charging fees ranging from $5 to $20 to Medicaid patients who repeatedly miss doctors' appointments. But it's uncertain whether that law actually can take effect, because a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says federal regulations don't allow such fees.
The guns legislation prompted some of the most intense debate Wednesday.
Democrats asserted it could put racial minorities at a greater risk of being fatally shot.
"The targets in our area are black boys, not pheasants," said Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents Ferguson, where sometimes violent protests broke out after the fatal police shooting of black 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014. The white officer was cleared of wrongdoing by state and federal investigations.
"What I don't want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, 'Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let's shoot,'" Chappelle-Nadal said, a reference to Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old who was walking back from a Florida convenience store after buying ice tea and Skittles when he was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012.
Republicans said such fears of greater gun violence are misguided.
"The basis of this whole bill is that it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families," Republican sponsor Sen. Brian Munzlinger said.
The override vote means Missouri will join 10 other states with laws that allow most people to carry concealed guns even if they haven't gone through the training required for permits, according to the National Rifle Association, which supported the legislation.
The measure, described by supporters as "constitutional carry," allows people to carry hidden guns anywhere they can currently carry weapons openly, effective Jan. 1. People who choose to still get a concealed-carry permit could potentially carry their weapons into places off-limits to others and could take them to states with reciprocal agreements.
The legislation also would create a "stand-your-ground" right, meaning people don't have a duty to retreat from danger any place they are legally entitled to be present. The NRA says 30 states have laws or court precedents stating people have no duty to retreat from a threat anywhere they are lawfully present. But Missouri's measure makes it the first new "stand-your-ground" state since 2011.
It also expands the "castle doctrine" by allowing invited guests such as baby sitters to use deadly force if confronted in homes.
Missouri's photo ID measure was opposed by the state NAACP, AARP and other advocates for minorities and the elderly. In a letter explaining his veto, Nixon said the measure would "disproportionately" impact senior citizens, people with disabilities and others who have been lawfully voting but don't have the government-issued photo ID required under the bill.
But the Missouri measure contains several exceptions supporters hope will help it fare better in prospective court challenges than voter ID laws in some other states. If Missouri voters swear they don't have photo IDs, they would still be allowed to vote by showing other forms of identification. The bill also requires the state to pay for photo IDs for those lacking them, as well as for any underlying documents such as birth certificates and marriage licenses needed to get a state identification card. And if the state budget doesn't include money for such costs, the ID requirement would not take effect.
Even then, the requirements wouldn't take effect unless voters this November approve a proposed constitutional amendment, which is needed because the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a previous photo ID law in 2006 as unconstitutional.
During debate Wednesday, sponsoring Republican Rep. Justin Alferman argued the photo ID requirement would "protect our elections against fraud."
Democratic Rep. Stacey Newman countered: "This bill is voter fraud on its face."
It hasn't been as much as last year, but I live in NY, so I'm not expecting much. A lot of people still haven't taken down their Bernie signs. A mix of Hillary and Trump, including one spray painted on the side of a trailer in someones yard. There's a couple Trump bumper-stickers I see at Uni, and a lot of left-over Bernie ones. I've taken to wearing a Clinton lapel pin to show my support.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Missouri's Republican-led Legislature used its supermajority Wednesday to significantly loosen the state's gun laws and potentially tighten its voting requirements as lawmakers overrode numerous vetoes of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The sweeping guns legislation would allow most adults to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit while also expanding people's right to defend themselves both in public and private places. The elections law change would require people to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls starting in 2017, if voters also approve a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
Both measures passed with more than the required two-thirds majority in each chamber as Republicans shut off Democratic discussion and enacted the laws on largely party-line votes.
The Republican supermajorities added to Nixon's record as the most overridden governor in Missouri history, a distinction made possible by an era of extreme political division in the Capitol. Heading into Wednesday, lawmakers had successfully overridden Nixon on 83 bills and budget expenditures over his two terms in office — nearly four times more overrides than the combined total for all other governors dating back to 1820 when Missouri was still a territory.
Nixon vetoed about two dozen measures this year, including ones already overridden this spring blocking pay raises for home-care workers and changing the state's school funding requirements.
Among the additional bills overridden Wednesday is one charging fees ranging from $5 to $20 to Medicaid patients who repeatedly miss doctors' appointments. But it's uncertain whether that law actually can take effect, because a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says federal regulations don't allow such fees.
The guns legislation prompted some of the most intense debate Wednesday.
Democrats asserted it could put racial minorities at a greater risk of being fatally shot.
"The targets in our area are black boys, not pheasants," said Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents Ferguson, where sometimes violent protests broke out after the fatal police shooting of black 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014. The white officer was cleared of wrongdoing by state and federal investigations.
"What I don't want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, 'Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let's shoot,'" Chappelle-Nadal said, a reference to Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old who was walking back from a Florida convenience store after buying ice tea and Skittles when he was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012.
Republicans said such fears of greater gun violence are misguided.
"The basis of this whole bill is that it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families," Republican sponsor Sen. Brian Munzlinger said.
The override vote means Missouri will join 10 other states with laws that allow most people to carry concealed guns even if they haven't gone through the training required for permits, according to the National Rifle Association, which supported the legislation.
The measure, described by supporters as "constitutional carry," allows people to carry hidden guns anywhere they can currently carry weapons openly, effective Jan. 1. People who choose to still get a concealed-carry permit could potentially carry their weapons into places off-limits to others and could take them to states with reciprocal agreements.
The legislation also would create a "stand-your-ground" right, meaning people don't have a duty to retreat from danger any place they are legally entitled to be present. The NRA says 30 states have laws or court precedents stating people have no duty to retreat from a threat anywhere they are lawfully present. But Missouri's measure makes it the first new "stand-your-ground" state since 2011.
It also expands the "castle doctrine" by allowing invited guests such as baby sitters to use deadly force if confronted in homes.
Missouri's photo ID measure was opposed by the state NAACP, AARP and other advocates for minorities and the elderly. In a letter explaining his veto, Nixon said the measure would "disproportionately" impact senior citizens, people with disabilities and others who have been lawfully voting but don't have the government-issued photo ID required under the bill.
But the Missouri measure contains several exceptions supporters hope will help it fare better in prospective court challenges than voter ID laws in some other states. If Missouri voters swear they don't have photo IDs, they would still be allowed to vote by showing other forms of identification. The bill also requires the state to pay for photo IDs for those lacking them, as well as for any underlying documents such as birth certificates and marriage licenses needed to get a state identification card. And if the state budget doesn't include money for such costs, the ID requirement would not take effect.
Even then, the requirements wouldn't take effect unless voters this November approve a proposed constitutional amendment, which is needed because the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a previous photo ID law in 2006 as unconstitutional.
During debate Wednesday, sponsoring Republican Rep. Justin Alferman argued the photo ID requirement would "protect our elections against fraud."
Democratic Rep. Stacey Newman countered: "This bill is voter fraud on its face."
Heard about this. I actually support CC, but do think that some level of training needs to be required.
You all probably know my opinion on these vote ID laws as well, but at least they are requiring the state to provide ID's. Although I'd want them to be issued, not just something you apply for/go down to the DMV for.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Missouri's Republican-led Legislature used its supermajority Wednesday to significantly loosen the state's gun laws and potentially tighten its voting requirements as lawmakers overrode numerous vetoes of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The sweeping guns legislation would allow most adults to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit while also expanding people's right to defend themselves both in public and private places. The elections law change would require people to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls starting in 2017, if voters also approve a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
Both measures passed with more than the required two-thirds majority in each chamber as Republicans shut off Democratic discussion and enacted the laws on largely party-line votes.
The Republican supermajorities added to Nixon's record as the most overridden governor in Missouri history, a distinction made possible by an era of extreme political division in the Capitol. Heading into Wednesday, lawmakers had successfully overridden Nixon on 83 bills and budget expenditures over his two terms in office — nearly four times more overrides than the combined total for all other governors dating back to 1820 when Missouri was still a territory.
Nixon vetoed about two dozen measures this year, including ones already overridden this spring blocking pay raises for home-care workers and changing the state's school funding requirements.
Among the additional bills overridden Wednesday is one charging fees ranging from $5 to $20 to Medicaid patients who repeatedly miss doctors' appointments. But it's uncertain whether that law actually can take effect, because a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says federal regulations don't allow such fees.
The guns legislation prompted some of the most intense debate Wednesday.
Democrats asserted it could put racial minorities at a greater risk of being fatally shot.
"The targets in our area are black boys, not pheasants," said Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents Ferguson, where sometimes violent protests broke out after the fatal police shooting of black 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014. The white officer was cleared of wrongdoing by state and federal investigations.
"What I don't want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, 'Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let's shoot,'" Chappelle-Nadal said, a reference to Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old who was walking back from a Florida convenience store after buying ice tea and Skittles when he was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012.
Republicans said such fears of greater gun violence are misguided.
"The basis of this whole bill is that it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families," Republican sponsor Sen. Brian Munzlinger said.
The override vote means Missouri will join 10 other states with laws that allow most people to carry concealed guns even if they haven't gone through the training required for permits, according to the National Rifle Association, which supported the legislation.
The measure, described by supporters as "constitutional carry," allows people to carry hidden guns anywhere they can currently carry weapons openly, effective Jan. 1. People who choose to still get a concealed-carry permit could potentially carry their weapons into places off-limits to others and could take them to states with reciprocal agreements.
The legislation also would create a "stand-your-ground" right, meaning people don't have a duty to retreat from danger any place they are legally entitled to be present. The NRA says 30 states have laws or court precedents stating people have no duty to retreat from a threat anywhere they are lawfully present. But Missouri's measure makes it the first new "stand-your-ground" state since 2011.
It also expands the "castle doctrine" by allowing invited guests such as baby sitters to use deadly force if confronted in homes.
Missouri's photo ID measure was opposed by the state NAACP, AARP and other advocates for minorities and the elderly. In a letter explaining his veto, Nixon said the measure would "disproportionately" impact senior citizens, people with disabilities and others who have been lawfully voting but don't have the government-issued photo ID required under the bill.
But the Missouri measure contains several exceptions supporters hope will help it fare better in prospective court challenges than voter ID laws in some other states. If Missouri voters swear they don't have photo IDs, they would still be allowed to vote by showing other forms of identification. The bill also requires the state to pay for photo IDs for those lacking them, as well as for any underlying documents such as birth certificates and marriage licenses needed to get a state identification card. And if the state budget doesn't include money for such costs, the ID requirement would not take effect.
Even then, the requirements wouldn't take effect unless voters this November approve a proposed constitutional amendment, which is needed because the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a previous photo ID law in 2006 as unconstitutional.
During debate Wednesday, sponsoring Republican Rep. Justin Alferman argued the photo ID requirement would "protect our elections against fraud."
Democratic Rep. Stacey Newman countered: "This bill is voter fraud on its face."
Heard about this. I actually support CC, but do think that some level of training needs to be required.
You all probably know my opinion on these vote ID laws as well, but at least they are requiring the state to provide ID's. Although I'd want them to be issued, not just something you apply for/go down to the DMV for.
If you require training it isn't constitutional carry. Missouri will still offer concealed carry permits, you can't get reciprocity in other states without one and I'm sure that process will require that some minimum amount of proficiency be demonstrated. You didn't need any training to lawfully open carry in Missouri and the new law just amends that to include concealed carry.
Don't wanna turn this into another voter id debate, but at least they're also including provisions to get those ids to people who don't have them. That's always been my argument against voter id laws, that if you care so much about requiring id, then work to get those ids out there.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Trump and the Alt-Right
Pepe and the stormtroopers
How Donald Trump ushered a hateful fringe movement into the mainstream
Sep 17th 2016 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
FIRST, an apology, or rather a regret: The Economist would prefer not to advertise the rantings of racists and cranks. Unfortunately, and somewhat astonishingly, the Alt-Right—the misleading name for a ragtag but consistently repulsive movement that hitherto has flourished only on the internet—has insinuated itself, unignorably, into American politics. That grim achievement points to the reverse sway now held by the margins, of both ideology and the media, over the mainstream. It also reflects the indiscriminate cynicism of Donald Trump’s campaign.
Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography. Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money. Its favourite avatar is Pepe the frog, a cartoon-strip creature co-opted into offensive scenarios; one Pepe image was reposted this week by Donald Trump junior and Roger Stone, a leading Trumpista, the latest example of the candidate’s supporters, and the man himself, circulating the Alt-Right’s memes and hoax statistics. Its contribution to typography is the triple parentheses, placed around names to identify them as Jewish.
In this section
Pepe and the stormtroopers
Heard on the trail
Hillary-care
Great again?
Power of the county
About to tilt
Who’s deplorable?
Survey
Reprints
Related topics
Race relations
Social issues
Racism and bigotry
Donald Trump
To most Americans, the purposes to which these gimmicks are put will seem as outlandish as the lexicon. One of the Alt-Right’s pastimes is to intimidate adversaries with photoshopped pictures of concentration camps; a popular Alt-Right podcast is called “The Daily Shoah”. To their defenders, such outrages are either justified by their shock value or valiantly transgressive pranks. Jokes about ovens, lampshades and gas chambers: what larks!
Advertisement
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an extremist website, dismisses these antics as “youthful rebellion”. (Mr Taylor is also involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Dylann Roof cited as an inspiration for his racist massacre in Charleston last year.) But the substance behind the sulphur can seem difficult to pin down. The term Alt-Right, reputedly coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute, a bogus think-tank, encompasses views from libertarianism to paleoconservatism and onwards to the edges of pseudo-intellectual claptrap and the English language. Many Alt-Righters demonise Jews, but a few do not. Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better; others, such as Mr Taylor, disagree. Some are techno-futurists; others espouse a kind of agrarian nostalgia. Many mourn the Confederacy. Mr Griffin thinks that, even today, North and South should separate.
Yet from the quack ideologues to the out-and-proud neo-Nazis, some Alt-Right tenets are clear and constant. It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto. It embraces isolationism and protectionism. Above all, it champions white nationalism, or a neo-segregationist “race realism”, giving apocalyptic warning of an impending “white genocide”. Which, of course, is really just old-fashioned white supremacism in skimpy camouflage.
That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones. “Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”
Probably the best that can be said for the Alt-Right is that its mostly youngish adherents are naive: unaware that 21st-century America is not the worst society the world has ever conjured, and so prime exemplars of the pampered modernity they denounce. Their numbers are hard to gauge, since they mostly operate online and, as with most internet bullies, anonymously: like dissidents in the Soviet Union they must, Mr Taylor insists, for fear of punishment. As with pornographers, though, the web has let them forge like-minded communities and propagate their ideas, as well as harass critics and opponents (particularly those thought to be Jewish). Online, they have achieved sufficient density to warrant wider attention. There, too, they and Mr Trump found each other.
The association precedes Mr Trump’s hiring as his campaign manager of Stephen Bannon, former boss of Breitbart News, a reactionary news website that Mr Bannon reportedly described as “the platform for the Alt-Right”, and which has covered the movement favourably. Already Mr Trump had echoed the Alt-Right’s views on Muslims, immigration, trade and, indeed, Vladimir Putin, whom Alt-Righters ludicrously admire for his supposed pursuit of Russia’s national interest. Pressed about these shared prejudices (and tweets), Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists—unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.
This is not to say he created or leads it, much as Alt-Right activists lionise his strongman style. Mr Taylor says Mr Trump seems to have “nationalistic instincts that have led him to stumble onto an immigration policy that is congruent with Alt-Right ideas”, but that “we are supporting him, not the reverse.” Breitbart, Alt-Righters say, is merely Alt-Lite. The true relationship may be more a correlation than causal: Mr Trump’s rise and the Alt-Right were both cultivated by the kamikaze anti-elitism of the Tea Party, rampant conspiracy theories and demographic shifts that disconcert some white Americans.
Unquestionably, however, Mr Trump has bestowed on this excrescence a scarcely dreamed-of prominence. As Hillary Clinton recently lamented, no previous major-party nominee has given America’s paranoid fringe a “national megaphone”. Many on the Alt-Right loved that speech: “it was great,” says Mr Griffin. “She positioned us as the real opposition.” Because of Mr Trump, the Alt-Right thinks it is on the verge of entering American politics as an equal-terms participant. “He is a bulldozer who is destroying our traditional enemy,” says Mr Griffin. Mr Trump may not be Alt-Right himself, but “he doesn’t have to be to advance our cause.”
Trump and the Alt-Right
Pepe and the stormtroopers
How Donald Trump ushered a hateful fringe movement into the mainstream
Sep 17th 2016 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
FIRST, an apology, or rather a regret: The Economist would prefer not to advertise the rantings of racists and cranks. Unfortunately, and somewhat astonishingly, the Alt-Right—the misleading name for a ragtag but consistently repulsive movement that hitherto has flourished only on the internet—has insinuated itself, unignorably, into American politics. That grim achievement points to the reverse sway now held by the margins, of both ideology and the media, over the mainstream. It also reflects the indiscriminate cynicism of Donald Trump’s campaign.
Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography. Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money. Its favourite avatar is Pepe the frog, a cartoon-strip creature co-opted into offensive scenarios; one Pepe image was reposted this week by Donald Trump junior and Roger Stone, a leading Trumpista, the latest example of the candidate’s supporters, and the man himself, circulating the Alt-Right’s memes and hoax statistics. Its contribution to typography is the triple parentheses, placed around names to identify them as Jewish.
In this section
Pepe and the stormtroopers
Heard on the trail
Hillary-care
Great again?
Power of the county
About to tilt
Who’s deplorable?
Survey
Reprints
Related topics
Race relations
Social issues
Racism and bigotry
Donald Trump
To most Americans, the purposes to which these gimmicks are put will seem as outlandish as the lexicon. One of the Alt-Right’s pastimes is to intimidate adversaries with photoshopped pictures of concentration camps; a popular Alt-Right podcast is called “The Daily Shoah”. To their defenders, such outrages are either justified by their shock value or valiantly transgressive pranks. Jokes about ovens, lampshades and gas chambers: what larks!
Advertisement
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an extremist website, dismisses these antics as “youthful rebellion”. (Mr Taylor is also involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Dylann Roof cited as an inspiration for his racist massacre in Charleston last year.) But the substance behind the sulphur can seem difficult to pin down. The term Alt-Right, reputedly coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute, a bogus think-tank, encompasses views from libertarianism to paleoconservatism and onwards to the edges of pseudo-intellectual claptrap and the English language. Many Alt-Righters demonise Jews, but a few do not. Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better; others, such as Mr Taylor, disagree. Some are techno-futurists; others espouse a kind of agrarian nostalgia. Many mourn the Confederacy. Mr Griffin thinks that, even today, North and South should separate.
Yet from the quack ideologues to the out-and-proud neo-Nazis, some Alt-Right tenets are clear and constant. It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto. It embraces isolationism and protectionism. Above all, it champions white nationalism, or a neo-segregationist “race realism”, giving apocalyptic warning of an impending “white genocide”. Which, of course, is really just old-fashioned white supremacism in skimpy camouflage.
That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones. “Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”
Probably the best that can be said for the Alt-Right is that its mostly youngish adherents are naive: unaware that 21st-century America is not the worst society the world has ever conjured, and so prime exemplars of the pampered modernity they denounce. Their numbers are hard to gauge, since they mostly operate online and, as with most internet bullies, anonymously: like dissidents in the Soviet Union they must, Mr Taylor insists, for fear of punishment. As with pornographers, though, the web has let them forge like-minded communities and propagate their ideas, as well as harass critics and opponents (particularly those thought to be Jewish). Online, they have achieved sufficient density to warrant wider attention. There, too, they and Mr Trump found each other.
The association precedes Mr Trump’s hiring as his campaign manager of Stephen Bannon, former boss of Breitbart News, a reactionary news website that Mr Bannon reportedly described as “the platform for the Alt-Right”, and which has covered the movement favourably. Already Mr Trump had echoed the Alt-Right’s views on Muslims, immigration, trade and, indeed, Vladimir Putin, whom Alt-Righters ludicrously admire for his supposed pursuit of Russia’s national interest. Pressed about these shared prejudices (and tweets), Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists—unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.
This is not to say he created or leads it, much as Alt-Right activists lionise his strongman style. Mr Taylor says Mr Trump seems to have “nationalistic instincts that have led him to stumble onto an immigration policy that is congruent with Alt-Right ideas”, but that “we are supporting him, not the reverse.” Breitbart, Alt-Righters say, is merely Alt-Lite. The true relationship may be more a correlation than causal: Mr Trump’s rise and the Alt-Right were both cultivated by the kamikaze anti-elitism of the Tea Party, rampant conspiracy theories and demographic shifts that disconcert some white Americans.
Unquestionably, however, Mr Trump has bestowed on this excrescence a scarcely dreamed-of prominence. As Hillary Clinton recently lamented, no previous major-party nominee has given America’s paranoid fringe a “national megaphone”. Many on the Alt-Right loved that speech: “it was great,” says Mr Griffin. “She positioned us as the real opposition.” Because of Mr Trump, the Alt-Right thinks it is on the verge of entering American politics as an equal-terms participant. “He is a bulldozer who is destroying our traditional enemy,” says Mr Griffin. Mr Trump may not be Alt-Right himself, but “he doesn’t have to be to advance our cause.”
Depressing, but interesting, thanks for sharing.
So that's where 'cuck' comes from. I've seen it pop up on Louis CK videos, I wondered the context. (I know what a cuckold is, in the traditional sense).
What a lot of desperately frustrated young men. I hope they manage to sort their lives out and do something useful.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
The same Democratic law firm working with Google to provide people with election information helped the Obama administration to run a "pay for play" operation that could explain how ambassadorships were awarded during Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department, according to new leaked documents purportedly from the Democratic National Committee.
The revelation about the Seattle-based Perkins Coie was included in a batch of documents leaked Tuesday by Guccifer 2.0, a hacker who holds information on both the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats have warned some of the papers might be counterfeit, but Guccier 2.0 has leaked other papers that were not disputed by Democrats.
The most explicit language was included in a May 18, 2016 email sent by Perkins Coie attorney Jacquelyn Lopez to staffers at the DNC, in which Lopez asked them to set up a call "to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters."
A separate document lists the presidential appointments that were doled out to donors. That list notes the highest bidder, Matthew Barzun, contributed $3.5 million to President Obama's first election in 2008, and subsequently received an appointment as America's ambassador to the United Kingdom and Sweden in August 2009.
Julius Genachowski, who donated a little more than $3.4 million, was appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in June 2009. Frank Sanchez, who donated nearly the same amount, was awarded a position as undersecretary at the Commerce Department in 2010.
Of the top 57 donors, 18 received ambassadorships at Clinton's State Department. The cheapest, Bill Facho, paid a paltry $950,718 to serve as ambassador to Austria from 2009-13. The median price was about $1.5 million, and the four contributors closest to that range received appointments to South Africa, Belgium, Luxembourg, and New Zealand.
It's unclear whether any donors were awarded positions in the days subsequent to the email from Lopez, which came less than a month before the revelation the DNC hand been breached.
Lopez's firm, Perkins Coie, has performed legal work for both the DNC and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The firm drew fire from Democrats who supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over Clinton in the party's presidential primary over that perceived conflict of interest.
The firm announced in August that it was entering a partnership with Google to offer election information through the search engine. Google insisted it was a nonpartisan effort aimed at encouraging users to vote.
While it's not uncommon for donors to receive political appointments, the Obama administration has been criticized for doling out an unusually large number over the years. Unqualified appointees could constitute a violation of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which prohibits appointments from being made on a purely financial basis.
If you require training it isn't constitutional carry. Missouri will still offer concealed carry permits, you can't get reciprocity in other states without one and I'm sure that process will require that some minimum amount of proficiency be demonstrated. You didn't need any training to lawfully open carry in Missouri and the new law just amends that to include concealed carry.
Which might be the reason I disagreed with it, hmm?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Is pay for playlegal if you're at least qualified for the position? I wanna know...
The same Democratic law firm working with Google to provide people with election information helped the Obama administration to run a "pay for play" operation that could explain how ambassadorships were awarded during Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department, according to new leaked documents purportedly from the Democratic National Committee.
The revelation about the Seattle-based Perkins Coie was included in a batch of documents leaked Tuesday by Guccifer 2.0, a hacker who holds information on both the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats have warned some of the papers might be counterfeit, but Guccier 2.0 has leaked other papers that were not disputed by Democrats.
The most explicit language was included in a May 18, 2016 email sent by Perkins Coie attorney Jacquelyn Lopez to staffers at the DNC, in which Lopez asked them to set up a call "to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters."
A separate document lists the presidential appointments that were doled out to donors. That list notes the highest bidder, Matthew Barzun, contributed $3.5 million to President Obama's first election in 2008, and subsequently received an appointment as America's ambassador to the United Kingdom and Sweden in August 2009.
Julius Genachowski, who donated a little more than $3.4 million, was appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in June 2009. Frank Sanchez, who donated nearly the same amount, was awarded a position as undersecretary at the Commerce Department in 2010.
Of the top 57 donors, 18 received ambassadorships at Clinton's State Department. The cheapest, Bill Facho, paid a paltry $950,718 to serve as ambassador to Austria from 2009-13. The median price was about $1.5 million, and the four contributors closest to that range received appointments to South Africa, Belgium, Luxembourg, and New Zealand.
It's unclear whether any donors were awarded positions in the days subsequent to the email from Lopez, which came less than a month before the revelation the DNC hand been breached.
Lopez's firm, Perkins Coie, has performed legal work for both the DNC and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The firm drew fire from Democrats who supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over Clinton in the party's presidential primary over that perceived conflict of interest.
The firm announced in August that it was entering a partnership with Google to offer election information through the search engine. Google insisted it was a nonpartisan effort aimed at encouraging users to vote.
While it's not uncommon for donors to receive political appointments, the Obama administration has been criticized for doling out an unusually large number over the years. Unqualified appointees could constitute a violation of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which prohibits appointments from being made on a purely financial basis.
Wait, ambassadorships being given out to donors is news? This has been par for the course for a while now, R&D. It's a bit gakky, but hardly new or shocking information.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/16 01:43:16
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Frazzled wrote: Neither party has a place for "moderates" in the next few years. Further definitions of hardcore members are changing.
The Republicans began removing the moderates from their party in the 90s, and have been getting more stringent and more crazy ever since. The Democrats are only just beginning their own process, though it will likely play out very differently as their own radicalisation is coming through the grassroots (which potentially could make it even more dysfunctional and even harder to fix).
But right now it is very important to recognise which party has actually become a hardcore bunch of lunatics, and which party only threatens to become such.
Alternatively, we may be seeing a shift from Lefty/Righty to Elite/Worker parties.
Elite/Worker parties is the split that's actually being lost, as Republicans move away from big business and towards populism.
The new split is on education level, which is added to the existing ethnic split. White people with no more than a highschool education will likely be the only group Trump will actually gain votes in compared to Romney (though he's gained so much it could win him the election). Meanwhile, Trump is likely to lose ground with white college educated people. And of course Trump's score among non-white groups is bad even by the standards of the Republican party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: Even it the race is not close, it’s in the media’s best interest to make us thing it is. Keeps the eyes glued to the screen and the clicks on the web.
That's the easy, cynical view, but it doesn't really match with the facts. This race is very close, but the media keep presenting Clinton as clearly winning.
I think probably the best explanation is that a very large portion of the media are fething idiots who don't understand the most basic things about numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think the closest we've come is Teddy's Bull Moose Party, when he came in 2nd in 1912, with 27% of the vote, beating the incumbent even.
Yeah, Roosevelt basically split the Republican vote and let the Democrat get over the line. Basically showing why third parties are actively harmful to their own political cause in a first past the post system.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 02:21:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I found it more than a little hilarious that in spite of all the guff Trump gives China for "taking all the jobs" he gave a speech about the economy in a luxury hotel that had been bought out by a Chinese insurance firm and suspected of being a Chinese StateSec front.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only way for 3rd parties to gain the ability to affect things is to grow. Getting federal funding helps them grow. Independents and 3rd party candidates have had successful statewide campaigns.
Sure, and then the question becomes one of how a party grows. And I don't think for one second that the answer is in getting federal funding from hitting the 5%. Money is nice but nothing is more valuable than voter loyalty, and voter loyalty comes from delivering results. So you win local and state elections, and find a way to get your policies enacted. Then if those policies actually help people and are something they want, you grow, and the money will flow with that.
To put it another way - if Gary Johnson had federal funding he'd have another $10m. There is no sensible way of claiming Johnson would be any chance of winning the election if only he had $10m more in campaign funds.
Bernie Sanders isn't technically a Democrat and he beat Hillary in several states.
Sanders is technically a Democrat. He had to join the party to run in the primary. Whether he is really a Democrat is the issue, as he'd been an independent for a long time before then. Of course, I'd counter that when you caucus with one party only and vote with that party in almost everything, you're effectively a member of that party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Economist takes aim at the Alt-Right and Trump's role in helping to sponsoring them towards the political mainstream.
It reads like the stuff of bad political drama that one candidate could be openly courting fringe racists and still be within a few points of the leading candidate.
What an incredibly stupid place this election has wandered in to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 02:50:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I lived in Carbondale, Illinois for the first half of the year and it is a very very liberal town. We had a Bernie sign out in our yard, it was stolen within a week. Some people are messed up.
It also plays host a school of ~17,000 that doesn't have a particularly liberal student body. While your assessment of "messed up" was likely correct, I think it may be for reasons you did not intend.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
