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.
AndrewC wrote: Okay here's one slightly more off topic. Considering the rhetoric, inflammatory comments and sheer bile directed at Clinton, do you think Trump is in trouble, assuming she wins?
From what I've gathered from other sources his brand name is heading south, taking his families businesses with it. Eg cancelled golf trips, clothing returns etc (A personal favourite is the events(?) company that told their staff any expenses incurred at a Trump outlet would not be reimbursed)
I don't think anyone who can pull in 50 million voters is likely to be in any financial trouble. If all else fails, he'll have no problem milking the rubes in the derposphere. Look at how long Sarah Palin was able to play that out, and she didn't start out with a giant pile of money and brand recognition. He'll be fine. Once you hit a certain level of wealth in the US, you do really well no matter how badly you fail, and of course it remains to be seen if he even did fail.
"Sarah Palin" was already floating through my brain before I got to her name in your post. Trump will be on a gravy train for several years to come if he plays his cards right. He may even be able to garner enough influence to impact the 2018 elections, as some sort of kingmaker (Candidate X has The Trump's Blessing, Candidate Y does not) among his supporters. A lot will ride on how all the other downballot elections turn out. If/when he loses, it would be interesting to see if he runs for an office in 2018.
djones520 wrote: Here in TN, it's not all that common, but I do see it now and again. It draws my eye, but more if I can identify what they are carrying.
The actions of the person draws more attention, for me. Is the person "being nice" or using "racial slurs"? That's going to help determine how I view the weapon they are carrying.
A lot of it really is going to depend on the circumstances and the person involved. Anyone who walks up to me on my way to vote and asks me who I'm voting for is going to give me a case of the heebie-jeebies. Other factors will determine the severity of the heebie-jeebies (what are they wearing, what do they look like, are they armed, etc.), but there will be heebie-jeebies. Hell, any stranger walking up to me tends to give me the heebie-jeebies, but that's just how I'm wired. Especially given the rhetoric of this election, and the calls for practically revolting if the vote doesn't go the way Trump wants it.
"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
It is a sad commentary on modern America that people of any skin pigmentation or armament level think it is appropriate or necessary to hang around polling stations.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a sad commentary on modern America that people of any skin pigmentation or armament level think it is appropriate or necessary to hang around polling stations.
As long as they are staying within the boundaries of the law, then who is anyone to judge what they do?
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a sad commentary on modern America that people of any skin pigmentation or armament level think it is appropriate or necessary to hang around polling stations.
As long as they are staying within the boundaries of the law, then who is anyone to judge what they do?
It may be 'legal' to be an donkey-cave. Doesn't make them less of one...
Ustrello wrote: According to 538 only Nevada is in trumps circle right now and its only by a percent or two. Combine that with the fact that Nevada Democrats came out in force in early voting I don't see those last four going to trump.
Read that last bit again. Trump doesn't need all four, if he picks up Nevada and New Hampshire, or Colorado or Pennsylvania, as well as the states currently looking like coin flips, then he will win.
The early results in Nevada could be a sign of something. It might not be anything - there's more registered Democrats turning up than Republicans, but they may well still be voting for Trump. And even if it does show Clinton is beating her polls in Nevada, it might just be a Nevada thing, because polls in Nevada typically underrate the Democratic performance. But if it is an early sign that Clinton will beat her polling numbers across the country... then put a fork in it, we're done, it is basically impossible for Trump to win if voting numbers match the polls, let alone if they actually move to Clinton a bit. So it's a good sign for Clinton that might possible be an indication of a very good thing, but it also might be nothing.
“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.
Ustrello wrote: According to 538 only Nevada is in trumps circle right now and its only by a percent or two. Combine that with the fact that Nevada Democrats came out in force in early voting I don't see those last four going to trump.
Read that last bit again. Trump doesn't need all four, if he picks up Nevada and New Hampshire, or Colorado or Pennsylvania, as well as the states currently looking like coin flips, then he will win.
The early results in Nevada could be a sign of something. It might not be anything - there's more registered Democrats turning up than Republicans, but they may well still be voting for Trump. And even if it does show Clinton is beating her polls in Nevada, it might just be a Nevada thing, because polls in Nevada typically underrate the Democratic performance. But if it is an early sign that Clinton will beat her polling numbers across the country... then put a fork in it, we're done, it is basically impossible for Trump to win if voting numbers match the polls, let alone if they actually move to Clinton a bit. So it's a good sign for Clinton that might possible be an indication of a very good thing, but it also might be nothing.
No what I am saying is that he is only slotted to win one of those four states that you mentioned, now Nate Silver does mess around with his programs to show what he thinks is the more likely percentages and because of his past performances I tend to trust him on that.
'Shy' Brexit supporters, who sat on the fence, said nothing, and did their talking in the privacy of the voting booth were a big factor IMO.
A person who worked at my polling station told me there were people voting who hadn't been seen for years at any election.
I can assure you that the same thing will happen on Tuesday. 'Shy' Trump supporters, keeping quiet, sitting on the fence, and slipping under the radar of the polling companies.
These are people who haven't voted for years, but will be out on Tuesday, because like our Brexit vote, they will think that for the first time in a long time, their vote may actually be worth a damn....
Clinton should be careful of this....
Dude, your assurance really doesn't mean a thing. Don't take that as an attack against you personally, it applies to anyone posting here, myself included. Because the people who might have an assurance worth a damn, political insiders, professional analysts... those guys aren't posting their political opinions on a wargaming forum.
Thing is, the evidence for Trump having a shy voter phenomenon, there's basically none. We've already seen 40 something elections with Trump on the ticket, and in all those primaries Trump pretty much equaled or under-performed his polling numbers. We never saw a result that beat his polls in that state. And I certainly haven't seen any shyness among Trump supporters, instead they've been unusually loud and proud. Perhaps people extend 'shy Trump' to Republicans who've decided to vote against Clinton... but again that's hardly an opinion we've seen people shy away from. The shy voter thing makes sense in the context of quiet middle England not wanting to back the unfashionable Conservative party of the 80s, it doesn't make much sense in terms of Trump and his supporter base today.
This doesn't mean there can't be a surprise in the election day result from shy Trumpers... but this is because there is always potential for that for any politician. Shy Clintonians are about as likely, in fact they probably suit the old shy 'tory narrative better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: There's name for that effect that came when clear black favourite lost elections. Many white voters were affraid being labelled racist so either said don't know or lied on polls
That's called the Bradley effect, but it's probably bs. There's been a lot of analysis in to that election, and it's most likely that the surprise result was due to polls being taken late, or done badly, so that they failed to pick up a strong surge away from Bradley in the last few weeks before the election.
Even if the effect was true and did impact that race, the evidence in subsequent races is weak, and increasingly scarce. It may not have existed, and if it did it probably doesn't now. If nothing else, remember how much people expected the Bradley effect to play a roll in Obama's two presidential races... but Obama beat his polls both times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On a serious note, I don't think your polling systems are any better than ours. I'm old enough to remember the days when the pollsters though Gore could beat Bush and Bush Snr was going to beat Bill Clinton.
You're old enough to remember wrong. An average of final polls put Bush up by 3 points, the final result was a very narrow win to Gore (basically a statistical tie). You're probably thinking of exit polling on the day, which was more problematic, but even then it was mostly media mismanagement, not an issue with the polls themselves.
Bill Clinton was a very strong favourite in 1992. An average of polls showed him winning by 6 points, and won by 5.5 points. You're just wrong there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: How unsurprising. We've been hearing about that Black Panther with the nightstick for literally years, even opened up a DOJ investigation with it's own attendant scandal IIRC, but now there's a guy with a gun outside asking people how they're going to vote, and it's NBD because he's Team Red.
Who could have foreseen this shocking development?
It's almost as if minor stories get carried by the rightwing media for years because it serves their narrative, but as soon as a similar incident happens then the rightwing suddenly they start getting technical on exactly what kind of weapons you can carry and where before you can be breach of a law.
I mean, the real story here is that historically both political parties have had voter intimidation done on their behalf, without organisation or sanction, by crazies... a rare handful of times. It's probably only beaten in statistical meaningless by voter ID fraud for how much its impacted elections. The real concern is that it might change this election, for the simple reason that Donald Trump has directly asked for it from his supporters. So far we haven't seen that in early voting, and hopefully we won't see it on election day. But that's the real risk, and while so far one oddball who's openly carrying while asking inappropriate questions (albeit politely) isn't much concern in himself, let's all just agree we hope he's the only instance to come out of this election.
Oh, and we should probably all be able to agree that Trump asking for voters to check polling stations for possible fraud was a fantastically gak thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. I'm saying they knew what they were doing.
You don't know this VA yahoo was open carrying to intimidate... I agree it was silly for him to open carry. But let's dispense with the idea that this is on the same level of the NBP.
Going up to someone just outside a voting booth and asking how they intend to vote has an intimidating effect, even if the person has no weapon at all on their person. If you add any kind of weapon the effect becomes much more obvious.
Really, the story here is that standing around voting booths asking people how they plan on voting should be intolerable to anyone. Any effort to argue that it was legal to carry the gun, or that a billyclub isn't as dangerous as a gun, or anything else that's tried to deny the obvious act of voter intimidation is fething bs.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 02:26:29
“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.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sarah Palin" was already floating through my brain before I got to her name in your post. Trump will be on a gravy train for several years to come if he plays his cards right. He may even be able to garner enough influence to impact the 2018 elections, as some sort of kingmaker (Candidate X has The Trump's Blessing, Candidate Y does not) among his supporters. A lot will ride on how all the other downballot elections turn out. If/when he loses, it would be interesting to see if he runs for an office in 2018.
Yeah, the idea he sunk is brand is laughable. This is a guy who is a serial philanderer with 3 marriages, no particular interest in God, and a track record of supporting abortion, and (except for the Mormons) all the Evangelicals got behind him. He implied the military consisted of rapists who can't control themselves and will commit war crimes if ordered, and he's got the military vote. After the election, when all the lying polls showing he was behind turn out to be true, all of these outraged rubes are going to want to eat up his appearances, and books, but not on the liberal media which rigged the election for Crooked Hillary, but on Trump TV, run by former Breitbart staffers. There are many wallets to be harvested, and Donald J Trump has just the tiny hands to do the harvesting.
You want a surefire way to make money? Be a GOP politician and say embarrassingly stupid gak. They eat it right up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 02:32:04
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I believe its important (at least for our sanity) to step back on occasion to admire how silly humans really are. Accordingly, to the more reasonable among us; let's pause for a second and admire this.
We have several people making the argument that a club is more intimidating than a gun.
A club is more intimidating than a gun.
Take a moment,, forget the grim realities and just think about that. That is the level of logic being employed here. And it really is funny how otherwise rational adults have willingly reduced themselves to that level.
AndrewC wrote: Okay here's one slightly more off topic. Considering the rhetoric, inflammatory comments and sheer bile directed at Clinton, do you think Trump is in trouble, assuming she wins?
It's likely his brands could get really hammered. They're already suffering for their association with a man who's shown himself as a bigoted narcissist. But the bigger hit may come if he loses, because while Trump's been known for being a pretty crappy person for a long time now, a lot of people also believed that he was a winner. In fact that was probably most of the appeal, that here was a man who could do all kinds of gak things and get away with it.
But if he ends being the loser who lost the Republicans a winnable election, I'm not sure how much of that brand will survive.
Would she return the favour and start an investigation into him, or at least expedite the on-going racketeering charge and tax questions?
Clinton may be ruthless, but it isn't in a personal sense. If she beats Trump she'll leave him be, because there's nothing to be gained from going back to poke at the roadkill.
I actually think something pretty similar if Trump wins, by the way. Once Clinton is no longer a challenge to him, he'll likely be happy to just let her go. Trump saying he'd appoint a special investigator in to Clinton was terrible, but it was also probably hollow. Trump has a history of fighting a very nasty fight, then just moving on with hard feelings once he's got what he wants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I don't think anyone who can pull in 50 million voters is likely to be in any financial trouble. If all else fails, he'll have no problem milking the rubes in the derposphere. Look at how long Sarah Palin was able to play that out, and she didn't start out with a giant pile of money and brand recognition. He'll be fine. Once you hit a certain level of wealth in the US, you do really well no matter how badly you fail, and of course it remains to be seen if he even did fail.
Sarah Palin didn't start out with leveraged assets. She's made a healthy living in media and on the speaking circuit*, but she hasn't got about billion dollars leveraged against various businesses. If Trump's various investments end up tanking, then there's no way a few million on the speaking circuit can ever cover his debt payments. Even a tv station that does well by the standards of news/political tv won't make a dent in those debt payments.
The flip side of that is that not all Trump's interests are likely to fail. 40 Wall Street is his biggest asset, and he mostly rents that out as micro offices to people who want a bit of Wall St real estate to provide a cover for their various financial cons (seriously, there's been something like 40 convictions of people running scams out of Trump's flagship building). That rental income won't be impacted. But the hotels, casinos and golf courses... it's an interesting question how much they might suffer. And if they do suffer, and if Trump's position is as tenuous as speculated by some... well there could be one final epilogue to all of this.
*And she charges six figures for her talks, but Goldman Sachs doesn't give a gak what she has to say, so apparently its okay or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 02:49:57
“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.
Louise K. Nolley of Buffalo is trying to stop the presidential election from happening on Tuesday.
In a lawsuit she filed this week in federal court in Buffalo, Nolley contends that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton is suitably qualified for the office. She requests the election be postponed until such time as more worthy candidates can be drafted to run.
“Neither of the candidates running for the Presidential seat shows that they can handle the position,” her lawsuit states, adding that “the character of both candidates falls far below” the standards needed.
Nolley said she is hopeful that President Obama can be persuaded to remain in office, possibly for a third full term which, of course, would be a violation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that limits presidents to only two terms.
While this may sound like a frivolous lawsuit, Nolley assured us that it isn’t.
“I’ve been writing on it and thinking about it and praying. I was just waiting for an OK from God,” Nolley said in a brief phone interview.
She got that OK sometime in the past week and filed the lawsuit on Tuesday.
Nolley, at 62, has a personal reason for trying to stop the election. She is a recovering heroin addict with a lengthy arrest and prison record. As a result, she said she has not been able to vote for president her entire adult life, until now.
“This is the first time I’ll ever get a chance to vote, and I just wanted it to mean something for me and other people who really need a leader,” said Nolley, who developed skills as a paralegal while incarcerated.
“So I really want to make a difference and do something different.”
If her lawsuit fails, Nolley vowed to not vote for either presidential candidate and just vote on the down ballot races.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I believe its important (at least for our sanity) to step back on occasion to admire how silly humans really are. Accordingly, to the more reasonable among us; let's pause for a second and admire this.
We have several people making the argument that a club is more intimidating than a gun.
A club is more intimidating than a gun.
Take a moment,, forget the grim realities and just think about that. That is the level of logic being employed here. And it really is funny how otherwise rational adults have willingly reduced themselves to that level.
More to the point, they're making an equivalency of a single investigated event from 8 years ago of a single person from a fringe group who left when asked to a current event of a person intimidating polls as part of a campaign of intimidation encouraged and organised directly by a major party candidate.
I mean, sure, the exact same, if your a damned idiot.
Whenever you get all this petty crap that goes on around an election, cases of non-campaign individuals doing bad or illegal things for their side, I always say you shouldn't let that inform your opinion of a candidate or party. Rather, look to what the candidate or party is doing or has done in regards to the issue. Look at what a candidate says to encourage that sort of action, or condem it, and base your opinion of them on that response.
Anyone else catch this doozy from the recent change to voting laws in North Carolina? When asked about why early voting days were reduced, the state defended its position by arguing that only some counties had decided to allow Sunday voting, and the “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black... disproportionately Democratic.”
It's kind of incredible how obvious the voter suppression was. It shouldn't have been that hard to cover up their real intentions, but the Republicans fethed it up in almost every way possible. Not enough to stop their supporters from denying it, of course.
Ustrello wrote: No what I am saying is that he is only slotted to win one of those four states that you mentioned, now Nate Silver does mess around with his programs to show what he thinks is the more likely percentages and because of his past performances I tend to trust him on that.
Okay, but what I am saying is that any forecast now is based on the polls. But we know from past elections that polls can miss by a few points, and if they do then miss in each state is generally correlated (some states correlate more than others, depending on the similarity in demographics etc).
So while the polls right now show a Clinton lead of 3 points, if the election day result was off by 3 points and Trump is even or close to it, then Trump will be in a position to claim 270 votes fairly easily. And a polling miss of 3 points is not unusual, we had a 2.7 point miss in the last presidential election.
Silver doesn't mess around with his formulas to show one thing as more likely than anything else. That's the exact opposite of what he does - he sets a model in place and then leaves it, because he knows the opposite is punditry and highly prone to inventing story you like more than stories that are real. Instead, Silver has produced his election probability of 3 simply by following the model he set up at the start of the process, and then feeding in poll results as they've come in. Silver's model is now showing a 65-35 probability split simply because that's the result his model gives when there's a 3 point lead, and a lot of undecided voters and swing states. In 2012 Obama's lead was actually a bit less, but there were few undecided voters, and only a few states with close results (which all had to go to Romney). The difference between Silver's model, which shows a result that's up in the air, and other similar models, seems to be that Silver is allowing for an across the board polling miss, while other models seem to be assuming that if North Carolina has a better than polled result for Trump, then Florida isn't any more likely to also have a better than polled result for Trump.
“I’ve been writing on it and thinking about it and praying. I was just waiting for an OK from God,” Nolley said in a brief phone interview.
She got that OK sometime in the past week and filed the lawsuit on Tuesday.
Do you actually, really?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 03:18:08
“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.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a sad commentary on modern America that people of any skin pigmentation or armament level think it is appropriate or necessary to hang around polling stations.
What? Don't canvassers hang around voting stations where ever you live? I find that odd. It would make me think people from where ever you live mustn't care much about politics.
That's why I wouldn't be intimidated by the guy with the gun, canvassers are standard fare every time I've gone to vote in Australia. Them having a gun doesn't magically make them more intimidating because I assume they aren't going to try and gun me down for saying "excuse me" and walking past them Someone holding a club in their hand I'd find more worrying because they're obviously not going to use that hand to give me a pamphlet or shake my hand now are they?
sebster wrote: Anyone else catch this doozy from the recent change to voting laws in North Carolina? When asked about why early voting days were reduced, the state defended its position by arguing that only some counties had decided to allow Sunday voting, and the “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black... disproportionately Democratic.”
It's kind of incredible how obvious the voter suppression was. It shouldn't have been that hard to cover up their real intentions, but the Republicans fethed it up in almost every way possible. Not enough to stop their supporters from denying it, of course.
They barely even bother trying to hide it. Art Pope bought the NC legislature and the first thing they did was try to rig all future elections to protect his investment. And everyone here knows what's going on, the only question is whether or not they buy the "but the democrats do it too*" excuse in justifying the vote-rigging.
*Which, to be fair, is a valid point. There's a reason NC was a solid blue state for a long time, and it's not because we leaned strongly to the left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I wouldn't be intimidated by the guy with the gun, canvassers are standard fare every time I've gone to vote in Australia. Them having a gun doesn't magically make them more intimidating because I assume they aren't going to try and gun me down for saying "excuse me" and walking past them
Maybe that's true where you live, but the US has an ugly history of people using violence to stop "undesirable" minorities from voting. Someone standing by the polls with a gun is a pretty damn intimidating situation if you aren't a straight white Christian man.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 04:10:04
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Plus as I had said before there have been trump supporters calling for rebellion if he does not win. So I feel that I am in the right not to trust a trump supporter with a gun
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I wouldn't be intimidated by the guy with the gun, canvassers are standard fare every time I've gone to vote in Australia. Them having a gun doesn't magically make them more intimidating because I assume they aren't going to try and gun me down for saying "excuse me" and walking past them
Umm, the canvassers here won't ever ask you how you intend to vote. That's a big no-no. I've never canvassed and almost certainly never will, but everyone else in my family has and they've told me about it. They give you a list of things you should and should not do, and asking someone how they vote is on the list of things you really, really shouldn't do. Really you're just supposed to stand there and look happy, and hand out the cards.
The difference between someone standing there handing out 'how to vote' cards and someone with no obvious formal party affiliation approaching you and asking you how you intend to vote should be very obvious to everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: They barely even bother trying to hide it. Art Pope bought the NC legislature and the first thing they did was try to rig all future elections to protect his investment. And everyone here knows what's going on, the only question is whether or not they buy the "but the democrats do it too*" excuse in justifying the vote-rigging.
*Which, to be fair, is a valid point. There's a reason NC was a solid blue state for a long time, and it's not because we leaned strongly to the left.
Yeah, I don't ever want to say or imply that the Democrats are clean. They're a big political machine, cynical tricks just comes as part of that. The difference is that right now Democrats are the ones benefiting from a bigger electoral turn out, and so are encouraged to help people vote. Their place on the side of right on this issue is accidental and probably temporary, but for now it is what it is.
The Republicans are trying to suppress the vote isn't of itself that big of a problem. But like everything it's a question of extent, the issue is that in this case in almost every state they've been almost cartoonish in their efforts. It's one thing to want voter IDs, it's another to pick and choose what voter IDs they'll take based on which demographics are likely to have which pieces of ID. And limiting early voting based on which demographics are more likely to use different kinds of voting is probably even less subtle.
Probably the biggest concern is that while Republicans have been acting so badly, there's always been a steady supply of defenders. That's the real concern for me, I really don't know what the bottom is, where the base of the party will actually say enough is enough.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 04:47:53
“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.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I wouldn't be intimidated by the guy with the gun, canvassers are standard fare every time I've gone to vote in Australia. Them having a gun doesn't magically make them more intimidating because I assume they aren't going to try and gun me down for saying "excuse me" and walking past them
Umm, the canvassers here won't ever ask you how you intend to vote. That's a big no-no. I've never canvassed and almost certainly never will, but everyone else in my family has and they've told me about it. They give you a list of things you should and should not do, and asking someone how they vote is on the list of things you really, really shouldn't do. Really you're just supposed to stand there and look happy, and hand out the cards.
Ideally that's the case but the canvassers aren't always educated well enough to know that and I don't know what the Murican canvassers are told anyway.
There's also a maximum $500 penalty for canvassing within 6m of the entrance to a polling booth in Australia but I've seen that happen too, at least that guy was obeying the same law the US has in that regards.
The difference between someone standing there handing out 'how to vote' cards and someone with no obvious formal party affiliation approaching you and asking you how you intend to vote should be very obvious to everyone.
The guy had a Trump shirt and was holding a bunch of cards that I assume were similar to our "how to vote" cards. Unlike the guy with the club in the previous picture.
Anyway, I'm out, you guys can feel scared of whatever you want to feel scared of. I was just pointing out I'd be less worried about a friendly person canvassing with a trump shirt, a handful of pamphlets and a holstered gun in a state that allows open carry than someone just standing out the front of a polling booth with a club in hand regardless of whether that person is black or white.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 05:03:11
sebster wrote: Yeah, I don't ever want to say or imply that the Democrats are clean. They're a big political machine, cynical tricks just comes as part of that. The difference is that right now Democrats are the ones benefiting from a bigger electoral turn out, and so are encouraged to help people vote. Their place on the side of right on this issue is accidental and probably temporary, but for now it is what it is.
Oh, I know, I was just pointing out the oddity of NC politics. We're a red state starting to become blue-purple as demographics change, but the democrats dominated the state-level government for a long time (since before the left/right realignment) because the party machine was so effective. It was less suppression and more gerrymandering and incumbent advantage, but "they did it too" does have a bit of truth to it. The republicans finally won the state legislature and decided they were entitled to have their turn of rigging the vote, so they didn't even pretend that it was about anything else. And so you get people here who will acknowledge that the republicans are trying to rig the vote with their new laws and district lines, but feel that it's justified because it's supposedly just reversing the advantages the democrats built.
It goes back to what I've said in the past about how important state-level things can be. Sure, the national-level republican party benefits from NC's vote suppression tactics, but it's mostly just a side effect to the state party's attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in buying the legislature. Just like I suspect NC turnout for the democrats is going to be high because the (republican) governor and legislature are pretty unpopular right now, independent of anything going on with the presidential election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 05:24:33
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
"Don. Donald! Mr Trump, will you please give me the mobile device? Come back here! Give me...will somebody please give the candidate a bottle of spray tan to distract him while I sign him off Twitter and hide his iPhone?!"
This alone tells you all you need to know about the temperament and unsuitability of this individual to be POTUS. His own staff doesn't trust him with a social media account and yet some individuals believe he should be trusted with access to the nuclear codes, our economy, the future of the country, SCOTUS nominations, meh, it's all small stakes here, right. What the motherfething hell!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 05:37:00
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Ideally that's the case but the canvassers aren't always educated well enough to know that and I don't know what the Murican canvassers are told anyway.
There's also a maximum $500 penalty for canvassing within 6m of the entrance to a polling booth in Australia but I've seen that happen too, at least that guy was obeying the same law the US has in that regards.
I'm sure at some point some canvasser here has probably asked someone who they're voting for. Maybe they even did it within 6m of the entrance. I've heard a story from a friend when he went to vote one time of a full on argument between a canvasser and someone who'd turned up to vote. gak does happen, afterall.
That's all got nothing to do with anything though. The point, to spell it out, is that while we have canvassers, those canvassers are told you don't ask someone who to vote for because that's a fairly offensive and kind of dangerous thing to do outside of a place where people are showing up to cast a secret ballot.
The guy had a Trump shirt and was holding a bunch of cards that I assume were similar to our "how to vote" cards. Unlike the guy with the club in the previous picture.
You've missed the point again. The point isn't whether you know where a person's allegiances lie. I mean, I doubt there's a person on the planet who'd struggle to figure out that the guys in New Black Panthers gear were on the side of the first black presidential candidate. Nor is it about being somehow more intimidated if you don't know if they're team Hillary or team Donald. The point in having the t-shirt and other official party gear is that a person is then clearly an official, sponsored part of the party. So you can assume they will be doing only official, legal stuff as per party direction.
Anyway, I'm out, you guys can feel scared of whatever you want to feel scared of.
And now you're trying to make it some kind of personal dick measuring thing. Well personally I wouldn't be afraid of this guy because I'd know my extensive training in krav maga would mean I could totally disarm the guy and like, kill him just using my pinkie finger. And then I'd bang all the chicks.
The point of course, isn't about whether you or I would be intimidated by anyone. The point is whether anyone would be intimidated. To the point that anyone in the community could feel intimidated, then what is happening is not okay. No-one should walk to or from the ballot box feeling nervous. It isn't hard to think of at least one possible person who might feel intimidated by a guy openly carrying a gun approaching voters and asking them about who they intend to vote for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Oh, I know, I was just pointing out the oddity of NC politics. We're a red state starting to become blue-purple as demographics change, but the democrats dominated the state-level government for a long time (since before the left/right realignment) because the party machine was so effective. It was less suppression and more gerrymandering and incumbent advantage, but "they did it too" does have a bit of truth to it. The republicans finally won the state legislature and decided they were entitled to have their turn of rigging the vote, so they didn't even pretend that it was about anything else. And so you get people here who will acknowledge that the republicans are trying to rig the vote with their new laws and district lines, but feel that it's justified because it's supposedly just reversing the advantages the democrats built.
Yeah, definitely. I just wanted to clarify I'm under no illusion of how it works. Just because it is Republicans working to suppress the vote now, it doesn't mean that will always be the case. And hell, there's probably a bunch of state legislatures where democrats are working to make it hard to vote in rural areas, to suppress likely Republican votes.
It goes back to what I've said in the past about how important state-level things can be. Sure, the national-level republican party benefits from NC's vote suppression tactics, but it's mostly just a side effect to the state party's attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in buying the legislature. Just like I suspect NC turnout for the democrats is going to be high because the (republican) governor and legislature are pretty unpopular right now, independent of anything going on with the presidential election.
This is a really good point. Not on NC specifically, but on the interplay between state and federal politics.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/07 05:34:37
“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.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The guy had a Trump shirt and was holding a bunch of cards that I assume were similar to our "how to vote" cards. Unlike the guy with the club in the previous picture.
And a gun. He also had a gun in plain sight. In the suburbs. Where that is uncommon.
Anyway, I'm out, you guys can feel scared of whatever you want to feel scared of.
As a 6'-0" 230 pound man with a concealed handgun permit, I'm not scared of an old guy with a revolver on his hip, but I understand how someone who doesn't match my physical description and predisposition might feel otherwise, such as my wife. So when I said that someone like that could intimidate me, that wasn't entirely accurate... maybe more like make me apprehensive, which I still shouldn't have to feel when exercising my civic duty.
I was just pointing out I'd be less worried about a friendly person canvassing with a trump shirt, a handful of pamphlets and a holstered gun in a state that allows open carry than someone just standing out the front of a polling booth with a club in hand regardless of whether that person is black or white.
Again, because no one seems to be paying any fething attention to what I say, open carry may be legal in Virginia, but it isn't common, especially in the northern suburbs where this incident took place. Seriously, this tool was at the Loudoun County Registrars Office, which is literally around the corner from my house (my daughters go to gymnastics in the building complex directly across the street from the office).
One thing I forgot to mention earlier, Hispanic/Latino people make up nearly 20% of the population in Leesburg so maybe Trump considers Loudoun County one of his "certain areas."
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: JFC, guys. The mental gymnastics some of you are taking are just amazing to me.
Like the voter suppression, what bothers me most is that once again all the same folk are turning up to defend this. The guy isn't even a part of the Republican party, or acting on their behalf, so they could easily say that that what he's done is voter intimidation and that isn't cool. But instead we're seeing people trying to claim Democrats did it worse, or that he was polite, or was outside the 40 foot boundary so it was legal.
Once again, just waiting to see where the bottom is, the point where the Republican base decide enough is enough. Voter suppression targeting ethnic minorities wasn't it. Some nut challenging people outside of a voting booth while armed wasn't it. Donald fething Trump wasn't enough for all but a handful to line up and vote team red same as they always do.
I mean, does everyone remember when Republicans said they'd block any Obama nomination to replace Scalia? The same republicans defended that here on dakka, because once again still not the bottom. But even then we heard plenty of them saying that it wasn't a forever thing, Republicans wouldn't block the next president's nomination. Except now Republicans are talking about doing exactly that. And there isn't a fething peep from of the Republicans here. What exactly is the point where people will actually stop fething voting Republican?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/07 05:46:51
“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.
The bottom is when the victorious allies force them to march into the camp and see the piles of corpses. And even then, there will probably be a stubborn 20% or so.
I don't think anyone who can pull in 50 million voters is likely to be in any financial trouble. If all else fails, he'll have no problem milking the rubes in the derposphere. Look at how long Sarah Palin was able to play that out, and she didn't start out with a giant pile of money and brand recognition. He'll be fine. Once you hit a certain level of wealth in the US, you do really well no matter how badly you fail, and of course it remains to be seen if he even did fail.
Im not so sure he'd need to go as far as Palin did though... If you'll pay attention to the end of his ads, you may notice his campaign is "Donald Trump, Inc." or "Trump for President, Inc." or something similar... Point is, unlike pretty much every other campaign I've ever looked at, he's the only one who has incorporated himself. Ohh, and we can throw in the earlier "non-stories" about how various Trump businesses have provided "loans" to the campaign effort. I think he views his "personal" money as being pretty safe... Now, whether he can generate any more because his brand/image is quite tarnished is a whole other ballgame.
I don't believe Trump's golf courses are doing brilliant either. My father (a big golfer) was telling me that they've been removed from the tournament circuits as a result of being associated with Trump.
