Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[Arcadia]

No offense taken here! I find it laughable too, just not in a funny way.

 

There have been quite a few articles about what might happen if Trump were to drop out before the election. Apparently the party's leadership is allowed to name a replacement nominee. (But only if the current nominee dies or quits.) But Carol's right, I'm not sure they could change the names on the ballots, because that's a time-sensitive process (and would waste a lot of money ... the state legislatures would be livid! ) So I don't know what they'd do... postpone the election? Use the outdated ballots? I'm pretty sure it would be a mess, at any rate.

 

I really hope we don't find out, I think it would be really unhealthy for our country to have a candidate chosen in that way. And I'm fairly alarmed by Trump's latest tactic of claiming the election has been rigged. I think we're going to see some major violence when this election is over. Assuming he loses, of course. And maybe even if he wins.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm fairly alarmed by Trump's latest tactic of claiming the election has been rigged.

He's saying that now, before the election? What does he think he is, psychic? (Not that I'm saying the election isn't rigged, mind you, just how would he know? How would anybody know?)

 

Sounds like he's starting to think he's gonna lose, and is setting up an explanation that will supposedly keep him from looking like a loser. And you're sadly right, his ardent supporters will buy into it. Hopefully they really are law-and-order types.

[Van Buren Supernova]

If I remember correctly, there was a time when a ballot with different name was used for election? (the original candidate resigned because of health issue or something) long time ago.

 

I get that the logistic issue may be a problem, together with the possible fall out and 'wrath' of supporters. It just got me wonder because months ago I had impression that it's not possible to change candidate, (I just got snippets here and there so of course it's inaccurate now that I know) around the time when thing started to get serious and people 'seemed' to regret getting him. By now, yah, I agree it may be too late, but if it's possible, why not then? I meant he showed a lot of alarming signs.

But sigh.. of course the answer is obvious, too many politicking and plays involved.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

We had it happen in Minnesota several years ago when Senator Wellstone died in a plane crash. Walter Mondale became the DFL Candidate but I think Wellstone's name was still on the ballot.

[Arcadia]

 

I'm fairly alarmed by Trump's latest tactic of claiming the election has been rigged.

...

 

Sounds like he's starting to think he's gonna lose, and is setting up an explanation that will supposedly keep him from looking like a loser. And you're sadly right, his ardent supporters will buy into it. Hopefully they really are law-and-order types.

 

I don't know. Did you see the lady who said she would support a revolution if Hillary won? Not that I believe she actually had a clue what she was really suggesting, but the emotion was real, and shared by many. And most of them have guns.

 

If I remember correctly, there was a time when a ballot with different name was used for election? (the original candidate resigned because of health issue or something) long time ago.

It's never happened at the presidential level, although as Camper pointed out, it's occurred in some "down-ballot" races.

 

I get that the logistic issue may be a problem, together with the possible fall out and 'wrath' of supporters. It just got me wonder because months ago I had impression that it's not possible to change candidate, (I just got snippets here and there so of course it's inaccurate now that I know) around the time when thing started to get serious and people 'seemed' to regret getting him. By now, yah, I agree it may be too late, but if it's possible, why not then? I meant he showed a lot of alarming signs.

But sigh.. of course the answer is obvious, too many politicking and plays involved.

Well, people were free to change their minds before they voted. Once the voting was over, though, the only way to change candidates would have been if the party representatives (the "delegates") had gone against the will of the voters at the Republican convention, and chosen their own candidate instead. Which they have the power to do. But most people who study these things think it would have shattered the Republican party. (And now there's some people predicting that's going to happen anyway.)

 

If you're wondering how Trump won in the first place, I think the prevailing theory is that most people who vote at the primaries (where they narrow many candidates down to one) are the "hard core" in each party; that is, people who really care about who wins. (Many people think it doesn't matter who wins.) And right now, the most motivated voters in the Republican party seem to be the people who think a Trump presidency is a good idea. So they voted him in. And now they're stuck with him, unless something unusual happens.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Did you see the lady who said she would support a revolution if Hillary won? Not that I believe she actually had a clue what she was really suggesting, but the emotion was real....

I wouldn't panic just yet. You know how the media operate -- find the most "newsworthy" example and play it up.  (Which explains why the general public thinks *all* Star Trek fans are weirdos.)

 

If you're wondering how Trump won in the first place, I think the prevailing theory is that most people who vote at the primaries (where they narrow many candidates down to one) are the "hard core" in each party; that is, people who really care about who wins. (Many people think it doesn't matter who wins.) And right now, the most motivated voters in the Republican party seem to be the people who think a Trump presidency is a good idea.

 

Could be.  It does seem like the Trump supporters are pretty ardent.  Around here, at least, you don't see Trump yard signs, you see Trump yard billboards.

 

It has also been suggested that some of Trump's primary vote came from Democrats who crossed the line, believing that Hillary could beat him handily but would have a hard time against some of the other contenders.  I keep meaning to do a statistical analysis of the votes in open-primary states vs. closed-primary-states.

[Arcadia]

 

Did you see the lady who said she would support a revolution if Hillary won? Not that I believe she actually had a clue what she was really suggesting, but the emotion was real, and shared by many. And most of them have guns.

I wouldn't panic just yet. You know how the media operate -- find the most "newsworthy" example and play it up.  (Which explains why the general public thinks *all* Star Trek fans are weirdos.)

 

Not panicking, just depressed at how ugly some of these people are, and how proud they are of it. I live in an area where I feel I will be pretty cushioned from such things, but I feel for people who are right in, er, the line of fire.

 

It has also been suggested that some of Trump's primary vote came from Democrats who crossed the line, believing that Hillary could beat him handily but would have a hard time against some of the other contenders.  I keep meaning to do a statistical analysis of the votes in open-primary states vs. closed-primary-states.

I like what Mike Pence said; if you genuinely fear that the elections are gerrymandered in some way, you should work the polls, and you'll find out ... that kind of thing simply doesn't happen that much. Some people want to believe that it does, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Worked the polls for many years; and believe me, we get to know our voters, because they're literally our neighbors. We have open primaries in Virginia, but you know who's crossing over and who isn't. It's very rare. Of course, that's here; something different may be happening elsewhere. But the balance of probability is that we are little different than any other community of Americans in that regard.

 

I did cross the line many, many years ago, but it was to vote for the Republican I preferred, not for the one I thought would lose. Because really, you can't know, can you? Who would have thought Barack Obama would be our prez for eight years? At the beginning, nobody; Hil supposedly had it in the bag. But it didn't work out that way. If Republicans were crossing over to vote for Barack, they grossly miscalculated. Not that a single one did, in my precinct. And my crossing over did me no good; the Republican I didn't like won anyway. So ... vote wasted. Like most of my votes.  But unlike some of the more ardent voters on both sides, I'm willing to accept that I'm in the minority and my candidate simply didn't convince enough people; I don't start accusing the other side of cheating. Heck, I don't even believe Bush "stole" the election from Gore. Every time some Dem claims he did, I want to stuff a sock in their mouth. But I don't know too many of those, either, except the occasional loudmouth on TV.

 

The most significant thing to me about Mike Pence's remark was ... as long as the lady who was talking to him was ranting about "fear" and "rigged elections" and "revolution", the audience was cheering. As soon as Pence said "no, get involved in the voting process; participate in your democracy" ... they quieted down. That's NOT what they wanted to hear. They don't want to engage; they just want to crush anyone who's not like them. And that's why Trump supporters make me nervous.

 

Sorry if I'm coming on too strong. Anytime anyone insinuates that our election officials are crooked (even without meaning to!) I see red. Because it just ain't true. Fallible, yes. But for the most part, honest.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Perhaps I should have made it clear (under the current circumstances!) that I was not talking about "rigging" the election or "gerrymandering" the districts or any such thing.  In an open primary, it's perfectly legal for someone to vote one party one year and another party the next time.  A person can even do that in a closed primary if they plan far enough ahead to change their registration.

 

I assume that most of the people who do that are genuine independents who take an interest in one party or another, due to the current candidates.  Even in states where one must register as something-or-other, surely a good number of voters are actually independents.

 

I will say, however, that a person who is a dyed-in-the-wool whatever, but votes in another party's primary in order to weaken their chances in the general election -- well, their actions are perfectly legal.  But.

 

No idea how often that happens, though.

[Van Buren Supernova]

If you're wondering how Trump won in the first place,...

Yes, that is what I'm wondering and why they didn't drop him when they had chance. But I'm aware that politic mostly doesn't make sense to me, so the reasoning are sometimes out of the world for me, as far as I know, of course it's oversimplifying, I can sum politic into two words; agenda and puppet.

 

@cross over etc

Interesting, so one has to declare/have some kind of standing/associated about the 'side' they are on?

The election I had gone through are mostly seen as candidate based, so it doesn't really matter which party, and most of the parties have general direction, although some have certain association/good relationship with some religion or race. So there is not so much of cross over because it's pretty normal to switch.

 

And just when I thought it couldn't get any weirder...,now they are questioning women's right to vote? How is that advantageous to the campaign and reputation? Decorative collective brains?

 

For most of it, do you guys think it's possible, that whoever gets elected, things will go on normally, it's just another face on top? Maybe that is the best scenario. From outsider pov, again, with limited knowledge, I can see that if Hillary wins, but not for Trump, because in his mindset, that means people are endorsing his behavior, which is quite f-up, because from what I have seen, his self awareness is pretty, pretty low and very delusional. We have discussed that term before... .. where I gave him as an example, dang, can't remember the term.

[Arcadia]

 

If you're wondering how Trump won in the first place,...

Yes, that is what I'm wondering and why they didn't drop him when they had chance.

 

Well, some tried. But the majority of people who voted in the Republican (GOP) primaries voted for Trump, so that's who they got. Why they voted for him is still being debated.

 

@cross over etc

Interesting, so one has to declare/have some kind of standing/associated about the 'side' they are on?

As Carol says, it depends on which state you vote in. The first time I voted, I was living in a state that required you to choose a party affiliation, so I could only vote in primaries held by the party of my choice. However, the state I'm living in now doesn't ask you to declare for a party, so I can vote in either primary.

 

This only applies to "primary" elections, one of which is held for each party, at the discretion of the party (sometimes they choose to hold "caucuses" instead, which is where the members of the party get together in one place and vote, rather than going to the polls.) In the "general" election, where the parties are running against each other, anyone can vote as long as they're registered.

 

And just when I thought it couldn't get any weirder...,now they are questioning women's right to vote? How is that advantageous to the campaign and reputation? Decorative collective brains?

They are? You mean here in the States? I haven't heard that, and it would be political suicide to do so. Or did you mean somewhere else?

 

For most of it, do you guys think it's possible, that whoever gets elected, things will go on normally, it's just another face on top? Maybe that is the best scenario. From outsider pov, again, with limited knowledge, I can see that if Hillary wins, but not for Trump, because in his mindset, that means people are endorsing his behavior, which is quite f-up, because from what I have seen, his self awareness is pretty, pretty low and very delusional. We have discussed that term before... .. where I gave him as an example, dang, can't remember the term.

Sure, it's possible. The president by him/herself doesn't have quite as much power as Mr. Trump seems to think, and Congress tends to believe they have the final say on things. But Trump could wreak some havoc if he truly wanted to; wreck some trade deals, offend nations, start wars. Whether Trump genuinely intends to do all that is a big unknown. It could be all talk.

 

There was an interesting opinion piece on this a couple of days ago; different people were wondering whether Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan (the leader of the House) could work together. Some said yes, because they're both somewhat moderate and willing to compromise; some said no, because the extremists in both parties have threatened to turn on them if they do compromise. It would take some courage to stand up to those groups. Whether either Clinton or Ryan has that kind of courage, I don't know.

 

Who says politics isn't interesting! :D

[Caya]

Cracked, of all places, had a beautiful article on the how and why of people voting for Trump the other day.

 

But at least the US manages to actually have a president elected (one presumes). Austria hasn't been able to for half a year now. Admittedly, not having any president for months now hasn't affected us whatsoever so far (in Austria, it's more of a representative position, kinda like the British monarch - lots of power theoretically but mostly giving yearly speeches full of gravitas and welcoming foreign visitors of state), but still, it's a major embarrassment. Next time we try is in December, maybe third time's the charm. -_-

[J.P.]

This is a very interesting insight, Martina. Thanks.

(even if in fact - and film - Braveheart's name was William Wallace and he wasn't just a simple farmer :P )

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that was good. I agree with the comments that it doesn't make sense that the white-collar, city-wuss Trump is the champion of these people, but I guess it would make sense if you actually believed he'd do the things he says he'd do. (In my opinion, he couldn't even if he wanted to ... the world has changed and we can't go back, even if everyone agreed that we should, imo). That's the measure of their desperation, perhaps.

 

But since my background is half rural, and since I've seen how my rural kin have adapted to the new reality, I find it hard to believe it's as bleak as all that. If it were, all my country cousins would be unemployed. I still think it's something more complicated than just rural vs. urban; for one thing, so much of the country is neither, but rather a mix, like where I live now. Hm. Interesting, but right now I have to cook dinner!

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Cracked, of all places, had a beautiful article on the how and why of people voting for Trump the other day.

 

Wow -- that is one amazing article. (It also explains why people are voting for Hillary, by the way.) I'm sure there are those who disagree with it, but I suspect they've lived their entire lives in white-collar urban areas. Or they've lived their entire lives in blue-collar rural areas. Or they're from some other country.

 

Having lived in a variety of places, I think both sides are right, but at the same time both sides are wrong. Each sees the other as not only Wrong, but as The Enemy, and quite possibly Evil. We might actually get somewhere if we all respected each other's viewpoints and worked toward a consensus, rather than clinging to this polarization. Not holding my breath, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm sure there are those who disagree with it, but I suspect they've lived their entire lives in white-collar urban areas. Or they've lived their entire lives in blue-collar rural areas....

 

... since my background is half rural, and since I've seen how my rural kin have adapted to the new reality, I find it hard to believe it's as bleak as all that. If it were, all my country cousins would be unemployed. I still think it's something more complicated....

Yeah, there you go, providing a counterexample while I'm still writing my post! :P

 

I suppose we could go a few rounds with how to define rural. But I don't think the writer said nobody in rural areas has a job, merely that the unemployment rate is higher. And of course it's more complicated. But I know times are tough in our rural area. One of our neighbor couples appear to have several of their adult children living with them. and several other houses are up for sale.

 

The little town that we live near is dying. For a while now it's been all thrift shops and restaurants, and now it's pretty much all restaurants. Alex and I went for a walk there the other night, and I was wondering who eats in the restaurants. It's not like the neighboring store owners and shoppers are stopping by for lunch. All I can figure is that it's the residents who (like Alex) work in a larger town nearby, and I doubt they'll provide enough business to keep it going for much longer.

[Arcadia]

Good morning! I'll just start right in again, shall I?

Interesting point about the restaurants ... in the small town I live near, restaurants are also about the only businesses that thrive. Even the mall is struggling. The way we live has changed, and personally, I don't think there's a thing in the world that can be done about that. We either adapt or fail. Or do away with the free market system.

"My" little town is trying to adapt. No feed store anymore; it's now an arts center. All of the antique stores, which used to be the trademark business, are gone. instead, lots of small niche stores offering hand-made items you can't find elsewhere. A wonderful "fair trade" shop. Galleries. Oh, and breweries. Boy do we have a lot of breweries. All businesses designed to appeal to tourists and a younger, more affluent, more suburban crowd.

But still, it's only the restaurants that are bursting at the seams. (It doesn't hurt that most of them are really good restaurants!) The rest stick it out until the building owner raises the rent too high, then find a new location, or quit. (The "villains" in our little world are the property owners, sitting on their massive estates in Texas, producing nothing except interest on their money, gleefully raising rents and whining about government regulations that force them to repair their buildings.) (Well, that's two of them; another one is the little Asian lady who has a McMansion in the Virginia horse country. Nobody likes her either, but at least she keeps her buildings in repair. ) About 80% of the town is owned by about twelve people, half of whom are absentee landlords. Hmmmm, can we possibly have found a connection .... ?

Ahem. Okay, where was I? Oh yes ... I think the Crackle article makes some valid points, I just don't think that's the whole story. The other thing that sticks out to me ... it's true, the deeper you go into the country around here, the more Trump signs you see. But here's the weird thing ... in northern Virginia, where I live, the deeper the country the greater the wealth. Alas, these are not locals made good, but transplants from all over the country ... all over the world, really ... who have bought up the land, built real mansions, and put up high tech security systems to keep the rabble out. The only place around here where us "regular people" can touch the land is ... whoops, those evil-government-owned parks! Which are filled with people of color and - gasp - Muslims! Eek! (I refer here to Skyline Drive, one of the most popular destinations in our country for people from other countries. And "anyone" is allowed access to it; even people who don't pay taxes here! Horrors!)

See my point? These are essentially what the Crackle article labels as "city people", but they've taken over the countryside. Maybe the Trump signs were inherited from the previous land owners, but I doubt it. These people, the "Virginia gentry"; their way of life is in no way under threat. They are not going to lose their land, their jobs, or their mostly white social circle. Their main beef seems to be paying taxes to support services for people who have not achieved their level of, er, achievement. (Libraries, pah! As one of these charming folks once told me, there's not a single book in the public library that he would care to sully his hands with, why should he have to pay into them? Roads? He'll build his own roads, thank you.) (Then, I presume, charge other people to drive on them. :P )

So it's not country vs. city, imo, or even haves vs. have nots; it's something else. Perhaps it's different for everyone, perhaps there's a link; I don't know. The only consistent thing I personally notice that unites the Trump supporters is anger. But I don't think they're all angry about the same thing. My friend that I've mentioned before, for instance; she's primarily angry with her ex-husband, and it's leeching into how she views everything else. Go figure.

 

Of course, northern Virginia is not typical. We have all these city folk, looking for a "real" small town experience, to accommodate. Most of the middle class around here is employed by high tech firms with lucrative government contracts. They commute 30-40 miles and go home only to sleep. The farms that are left are catering to the "organics only" crowd. I.e., we've adapted, helped along by proximity to the federal government, especially the Pentagon; an advantage many places don't have.

 

But Trump can't fix that; heck, it's entrepreneurs like him that have gotten us here. That's what's so bemusing.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Well, heck, all I had to do was look at the news feed Bing keeps trying to push on me. Here's pretty much my view, summed up by a better writer than I. Maybe I should pay more attention to Bing....

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-if-trump-loses-big-the-anger-will-remain-heres-how-the-left-can-address-it/2016/10/14/c848c4b0-8f02-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.94f69e3326c6

[T.o.b.y]

Thank you for the link, Arcadia, the article looks very interesting. I will come back and read it later.

 

Man, I have never been more glad to live in Europe! Sure, we have our own problems over here but at least we have a better choice of political candidates. (Which did not stop over 14% from voting for nationalist ultra-right-wing dickheads in the last local elections, so maybe I should curb my optimism. But 14% isn't as bad as... you know.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Of course, northern Virginia is not typical. We have all these city folk, looking for a "real" small town experience, to accommodate. Most of the middle class around here is employed by high tech firms with lucrative government contracts. They commute 30-40 miles and go home only to sleep. The farms that are left are catering to the "organics only" crowd.

Precisely -- that's why I specified blue-collar rural vs. white-collar urban. I'm not meaning to include everybody, just people who are actually voting *for* Trump or Hillary (rather than merely *against* the other one), and I think that article typified the Trump crowd pretty well.

 

And I agree that things are changing, but I don't think that that Hillary's crew understands that any better than Trump's crowd does. Gummint can try to direct change, but the change won't stick in the long run unless it arises naturally.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well darn, thought I'd posted this already, but musta mis-clicked.

 

Here's pretty much my view, summed up by a better writer than I....

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-if-trump-loses-big-the-anger-will-remain-heres-how-the-left-can-address-it/2016/10/14/c848c4b0-8f02-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.94f69e3326c6

That article makes some good points, and I hope that any Democrats in office will take it seriously.

 

I don't agree with their point of view on everything of course, plus there's one factual error I'd like to point out (partly because I've seen the same misconception elsewhere): No way is Trump a conservative -- as the article says later on, he's more of a populist. Conservatives believe in minimal government, whereas Trump seeks to be elected king.

[Arcadia]

We have been cursed with interesting times, that's for sure.

[J.P.]

You know, Hitler was also a kind of socialist.

And he's running from the conservative side of the fence, so to say.

[Arcadia]

Trump is on the conservative side, you mean? I have to go with Carol on this one ... Trump is no conservative. As near I can tell his ideology wanders all over the map, and changes daily. He's an opportunist and a carnival barker with delusions of grandeur.

 

Although American conservatism itself is morphing these days, it seems to me. Or being torn apart, if you believe some pundits. It will be interesting to see where they end up. But they've been courting the extremists on the right, and now it's coming back to bite them, just like the left got bitten by their extremists during the Reagan years. Maybe it's a necessary cycle, but it sure seems like a waste of energy to me.

[J.P.]

But he runs for the GOP which is conservative... or did I miss something? :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

The Republican Party has, at least recently, tended to be more conservative than the Democratic Party, which has tended to be more liberal. But since both "conservative" and "liberal" cover a wide variety of vaguely-related ideologies, and since the Reps and the Dems have somehow managed to secure a virtual shared monopoly for themselves, each of them is actually a pretty broad-based coalition.