[shyams]

BTW, a slight digression.

Douglas Adams, the author of the Hitchhiker "trilogy", had used a word called "Damascectomy" to describe the actions of the (fictional) US President in his fictional novel. That President had been influenced by his spiritual adviser Gail Andrews to go ahead and do it.

At least, the Republican nominee is not known to use spiritual advisers. On the flip side, he does not need one to successfully perform a Damascectomy if he is ever elected to office.

[kenberg]

While i continue to think that Clinton needs to promote herself rather than disparage Trump, this latest remark of his about the second amendment really needs to be rammed down his throat. Or, as Trump might say, "rammed somewhere, I don't know".

Warning of the (mostly imagined) dangers HC poses to gun rights Trump said, after warning that if HC gets to appoint her judges then there will be nothing anyone can do to protect gun rights:
"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Of course he says he was not making a threat. Ok, I can buy that. But it is worse.

Even highly uncompromising advocates for gun rights acknowledge there are some screwnballs out there. Two Kennedys, King, an attempt on Reagan, Brady, and so on. All that is needed is for one of these nut jobs to take it as a serious suggestion and get it into his head that he is doing as has been asked. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" Maybe Henry II said this, maybe he didn't, and maybe he was. a la Trump, just making a joke. Still. As I recall, one of Nixon's crew (Gordon Liddy) had thought, mistakenly I hope, that he had been told to take out the columnist Jack Anderson.

Good grief. Someone wishing to be president really needs to have some understanding of the possible consequences of his words. We can believe he meant it as a joke. This is not a joke that a person with any sense would make to a national audience. It is not at all out of the question that I would be arrested for making such a joke. No need to arrest him, we can accept it as a joke. Fine. But how anyone could want such a jokester as president is beyond my imagination.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-August-10, 06:50, said:

While i continue to think that Clinton needs to promote herself rather than disparage Trump, this latest remark of his about the second amendment really needs to be rammed down his throat. Or, as Trump might say, "rammed somewhere, I don't know".

Warning of the (mostly imagined) dangers HC poses to gun rights Trump said, after warning that if HC gets to appoint her judges then there will be nothing anyone can do to protect gun rights:
"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Of course he says he was not making a threat. Ok, I can buy that. But it is worse.

Even highly uncompromising advocates for gun rights acknowledge there are some screwnballs out there. Two Kennedys, King, an attempt on Reagan, Brady, and so on. All that is needed is for one of these nut jobs to take it as a serious suggestion and get it into his head that he is doing as has been asked. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" Maybe Henry II said this, maybe he didn't, and maybe he was. a la Trump, just making a joke. Still. As I recall, one of Nixon's crew (Gordon Liddy) had thought, mistakenly I hope, that he had been told to take out the columnist Jack Anderson.

Good grief. Someone wishing to be president really needs to have some understanding of the possible consequences of his words. We can believe he meant it as a joke. This is not a joke that a person with any sense would make to a national audience. It is not at all out of the question that I would be arrested for making such a joke. No need to arrest him, we can accept it as a joke. Fine. But how anyone could want such a jokester as president is beyond my imagination.

Every time I think Trump can't go lower, he drops another level. Words fail me...

[cherdano]

Meanwhile, here is a reminder: this really got people (including some BBF posters) upset about Clinton.How many classified emails did Hillary Clinton send and receive?

SHE DISCUSSED THE EXISTENCE OF A DRONE PROGRAM IN PAKISTAN VIA AN EMAIL SYSTEM NOT OFFICIALLY DEEMED SECURE TO HOLD SUCH HIGHLY SENSITVE AND WIDELY KNOWN INFORMATION!!! Clearly she is an untrustworthy crooked liar.

[barmar]

My guess is that Clinton's 27% lie statistic is in the same ballpark as most politicians. Like it or not, lying is a necessary part of campaigning -- it's hard to get elected by admitting all your failures (that's your opponent's job).

Most politician lies are just trying to spin things to make themselves look good. Or they're hiding failures. Hillary learned from her husband: "I did not have sex with that woman." Admittedly, national security mistakes are worse than being a horndog.

But Trump just makes things up. He's a total BS artist.

[onoway]

The accusation that Trump may have anything recognizable as a sense of humor is one of the few I never thought I'd hear.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-09, 15:09, said:

First, you have the right to vote for whomever you wish. It is, after all, your vote. But, if you are voting for a Libertarian candidate instead of the Democrat, it makes me think that political positioning (read that as: right wing politics) underlies your position more than trustworthiness of the person.

Well, does not it makes you think that your own political positioning underlies your position towards the Trump more than trustworthiness of the person.
Or you think that only Democrat supporters have a monopoly to be objective?

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2016-August-10, 10:02, said:

The accusation that Trump may have anything recognizable as a sense of humor is one of the few I never thought I'd hear.

Yes, "joking" was my term for it, probably not exactly right. "Just shooting off his mouth without any thought to consequences" would be closer.

At any rate, I found it worse than his usual string of insults. I have had late night discussions in bars where people give more thought to the consequences of what they are saying. It's just awful. As Passed said, words fail me.

A bit ago I speculated that Priebus and others may finally have gotten through to him about the need for him to pretend that he is someone other than who he is. The cure wore off quickly. It is time for self-respecting Rs to face up to what they have done. They really want this guy to win? Really? Some thought is needed.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-August-10, 10:20, said:

Well, does not it makes you think that your own political positioning underlies your position towards the Trump more than trustworthiness of the person.
Or you think that only Democrat supporters have a monopoly to be objective?

I am certain I am biased. But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-10, 11:01, said:

I am certain I am biased. But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

I guess we are on the same page.
If there were a sane Republican running I would give him my voice. Trump is the only person who made me seriously consider voting for Democrats, but I cannot see Clinton as a trustworthy candidate too.
Who is left for me?

By the way, when I saw the "republican" candidate Trump the first time I thought that he was hired by team Clinton to destroy the Republicans as the only way for her to be elected. (I am republican, so world only in the last sentence could be gross overstatement)

[kenberg]

I think Clinton can be trusted to attempt to advance the general Democratic agenda. This sort of trust is not "trustworthy character", it's just having a decent idea of where her interests lie. I am something of an old fashioned Dem, just as others my age might be old fashioned Reps. And what does this mean? I can't say I am thoroughly clear about that. But i liked Joe Biden's speech a lot.

Partly it means that I am fully aware that I benefited from a decent public school system, I benefited from attending a state supported university, my father and thus I benefited from effective union activity on behalf of blue collar workers, and many other such matters. I am also aware that being white helped a lot in accessing these benefits. I think that it is both good for the country and good for direct beneficiaries for such programs to succeed.

I do get tired, very tired, of identity politics. I am male, white and over 65 but I believe that I have views and interests that are not determined by the fact that I am male, white and over 65. If someone insists on my religious views I suppose I am an atheist, I certainly don't believe there is some supernatural power watching over us, but I think a lot of my moral/social views come from western religious traditions. I think we have a responsibility for future generations but I claim no philosophical basis for that. I like to think of it as a campsite mentality, you are supposed to leave the place in a little better shape than you found it.

Libertarian views have a live and let live component that attracts me, as does the idea that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. But I think society can be organized to make things better, to make it possible for more people do have more successful lives. It seems clear to me that I have benefited from such ideas. There can be crappy ideas and intrusive government, but there can also be good things.

Anyway, Go Hillary.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-August-10, 11:00, said:

A bit ago I speculated that Priebus and others may finally have gotten through to him about the need for him to pretend that he is someone other than who he is. The cure wore off quickly. It is time for self-respecting Rs to face up to what they have done. They really want this guy to win? Really? Some thought is needed.

Priebus angrily called Trump's campaign multiple times after Trump didn't endorse Paul Ryan. Subsequently, the GOP establishment strong-arms Trump onto reading out endorsements for Ryan, McCain.

Trump threatens Hillary may get killed for appointing the wrong supreme Court justices. The GOP establishmenthe shrugs.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-10, 15:09, said:

I think Clinton can be trusted to attempt to advance the general Democratic agenda. This sort of trust is not "trustworthy character", it's just having a decent idea of where her interests lie. I am something of an old fashioned Dem, just as others my age might be old fashioned Reps. And what does this mean? I can't say I am thoroughly clear about that. But i liked Joe Biden's speech a lot.

Partly it means that I am fully aware that I benefited from a decent public school system, I benefited from attending a state supported university, my father and thus I benefited from effective union activity on behalf of blue collar workers, and many other such matters. I am also aware that being white helped a lot in accessing these benefits. I think that it is both good for the country and good for direct beneficiaries for such programs to succeed.

I do get tired, very tired, of identity politics. I am male, white and over 65 but I believe that I have views and interests that are not determined by the fact that I am male, white and over 65. If someone insists on my religious views I suppose I am an atheist, I certainly don't believe there is some supernatural power watching over us, but I think a lot of my moral/social views come from western religious traditions. I think we have a responsibility for future generations but I claim no philosophical basis for that. I like to think of it as a campsite mentality, you are supposed to leave the place in a little better shape than you found it.

Libertarian views have a live and let live component that attracts me, as does the idea that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. But I think society can be organized to make things better, to make it possible for more people do have more successful lives. It seems clear to me that I have benefited from such ideas. There can be crappy ideas and intrusive government, but there can also be good things.

Anyway, Go Hillary.

I cannot nor do I wish to speak for Ken, but IMO the meaning of "old style Democrat" means moving forward with compromise that favors the middle and lower classes. If these changes happen to negate the changes that have occurred since Reagan took office, so be it.

I don't want a nanny state; I would, however, like to have a socially conscious state.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-10, 11:01, said:

I am certain I am biased. But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because of the electoral college. Your state is going 7-0 for Trump no matter what you do. My state is 20-0 for Clinton no matter what I do.

When people talk about disenfranchisement, it is usually about voter ID laws or other such things. But in truth the electoral college disenfranchises the most voters by orders of magnitude. It is a relic that should be abolished. National office, national popular vote.

/rant

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2016-August-11, 06:29, said:

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because of the electoral college. Your state is going 7-0 for Trump no matter what you do. My state is 20-0 for Clinton no matter what I do.

When people talk about disenfranchisement, it is usually about voter ID laws or other such things. But in truth the electoral college disenfranchises the most voters by orders of magnitude. It is a relic that should be abolished. National office, national popular vote.

/rant

More than any electoral college problems, I support a national election day holiday, an end to voter ID laws, and an easing of voting methods. With that accomplished, then we could discuss the problems with the electoral college.

[Winstonm]

So, it looks like racism is the reason for support for Trump, or a form of racism.

Quote

But Rothwell also found a second factor that correlates highly with Trump support:

This analysis provides clear evidence that those who view Trump favorably are disproportionately living in racially and culturally isolated zip codes and commuting zones. Holding other factors constant, support for Trump is highly elevated in areas with few college graduates, far from the Mexican border, and in neighborhoods that stand out within the commuting zone for being white, segregated enclaves, with little exposure to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Furthermore, this research lends more credence to the notion that psychological factors are behind the Trump support - quite similar to the "authoritarian" hypothesis I referred to earlier in this thread.

Quote

The Trump voter, according to this research, is driven not by simple economic self-interest but by something deeper and more psychological. Rothwell’s view is much more in line with the argument that Trump voters are whites who feel that their privileged place in America is threatened by forces they don’t really understand.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-13, 19:47, said:

So, it looks like racism is the reason for support for Trump, or a form of racism.



Furthermore, this research lends more credence to the notion that psychological factors are behind the Trump support - quite similar to the "authoritarian" hypothesis I referred to earlier in this thread.

I found this part interesting:

Quote

On Friday, a researcher with Gallup brought some much-needed data and clarity to this debate. Jonathan Rothwell, an economist who drew on eighty-seven thousand interviews in the organization’s polling database, expected to find that Trump’s strongest base of support existed in areas of America adversely affected by international free-trade agreements and lax immigration policy. He made a surprising discovery.

“The results show mixed evidence that economic distress has motivated Trump support,” he writes. “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations, but they earn relative high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” Rothwell adds that his results do not present a clear picture of the connection between social and economic hardship and support for Trump. The standard economic measures of income and employment status show that, if anything, more affluent Americans tend to favor Trump, even among white non-Hispanics. Surprisingly, there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign.

The fact that much of what voters do is not directly determined by economics is not news. The above gets into a little more detail and could suggest further thought. If it is correct that the blue collar support for Trump is particularly strong among those with relatively high household incomes, we might ask why. I can think of a couple of possibilities.

Precarious: A blue collar worker making good money probably did not always make good money and he probably knows a lot of people in worse, maybe much worse, shape. He has worked hard to get where he is and he wants things to stay as they are.


Respect: This same blue collar worker with a steady good paying job is probably respected by family and friends. His (if he is a he) mother-in-law is pleased with her daughter's choice of husband. Friends ask for his advice, maybe his assistance. His kids are proud of him. And then some schmuck like the author of this article denigrates him because his neighbors are white and because the guy doesn't even know people with a college degree. It has an effect.

Moving on. Just for amusement, I quote a later part of the article:

Quote

First, he finds that “more subtle measures” of “longevity and intergenerational mobility” are key to understanding Trump. In other words, Trump voters aren’t living as long as they should be, and they seem to have serious concerns about whether their children will be as prosperous as their own generation is.

Trump voters are not living as long as they should be?? Ok, he doesn't mean that the Trump voter has already died prematurely. But what does he mean? A guy's uncle died prematurely, so the nephew decided to vote for Trump? Perhaps what is going on is that Trump voters are not so well off financially, and people who are not so well off financially tend not to live so long. And, for that matter, people who have health problems tend to be not so well off financially.

"More subtle measures" are, by their nature, more subtle. Trump voters having a shortened life expectancy definitely qualifies as subtle. I have no idea what to make of it but I am having difficulty seeing any cause-effect relationship between premature death and voting for Trump.


Anyway, forget about this connection between Trump and early death. I don't think it goes anywhere. But the idea that it is the upper end blue collar worker who is supporting Trump matches well with my thoughts about what is going on. I am hoping the HC folks can understand it and speak to it.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-14, 08:04, said:

I found this part interesting:







The fact that much of what voters do is not directly determined by economics is not news. The above gets into a little more detail and could suggest further thought. If it is correct that the blue collar support for Trump is particularly strong among those with relatively high household incomes, we might ask why. I can think of a couple of possibilities.

Precarious: A blue collar worker making good money probably did not always make good money and he probably knows a lot of people in worse, maybe much worse, shape. He has worked hard to get where he is and he wants things to stay as they are.


Respect: This same blue collar worker with a steady good paying job is probably respected by family and friends. His (if he is a he) mother-in-law is pleased with her daughter's choice of husband. Friends ask for his advice, maybe his assistance. His kids are proud of him. And then some schmuck like the author of this article denigrates him because his neighbors are white and because the guy doesn't even know people with a college degree. It has an effect.

Moving on. Just for amusement, I quote a later part of the article:



Trump voters are not living as long as they should be?? Ok, he doesn't mean that the Trump voter has already died prematurely. But what does he mean? A guy's uncle died prematurely, so the nephew decided to vote for Trump? Perhaps what is going on is that Trump voters are not so well off financially, and people who are not so well off financially tend not to live so long. And, for that matter, people who have health problems tend to be not so well off financially.

"More subtle measures" are, by their nature, more subtle. Trump voters having a shortened life expectancy definitely qualifies as subtle. I have no idea what to make of it but I am having difficulty seeing any cause-effect relationship between premature death and voting for Trump.


Anyway, forget about this connection between Trump and early death. I don't think it goes anywhere. But the idea that it is the upper end blue collar worker who is supporting Trump matches well with my thoughts about what is going on. I am hoping the HC folks can understand it and speak to it.

While both of these ideas may have a small degree of merit, or be a contributing factor, the evidence points to an isolated white culture as the major cause. This is a form of tribalism, IMO, and these tribal groups look at outsiders or different thinking as enemies.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-14, 09:58, said:

While both of these ideas may have a small degree of merit, or be a contributing factor, the evidence points to an isolated white culture as the major cause. This is a form of tribalism, IMO, and these tribal groups look at outsiders or different thinking as enemies.

Actually, I am pretty interested in just what is going on and I do not think any one explanation handles it. The part I found interesting is that the Trump support from blue collar workers is more pronounced at the higher income levels. Maybe this can be squeezed into a white isolation argument but I think it would require some severe squeezing.

The article refers to a paper, here is part of it.
http://poseidon01.ss...4026072&EXT=pdf

Quote

The means and standard deviations of the full database used here, including the CZ level variables, is provided in Table 2. Trump's supporters are older, with higher household incomes, are more likely to be male, white non-Hispanic, less likely to identify as LGBTQ, less likely to hold a bachelor's degree or higher education, more likely to be a veteran or family member of a veteran, more likely to work in a blue-collar occupation, and are more likely to be Christian and report that religion is important to them. Those who view Trump favorably are slightly less likely to be unemployed and more likely to be self-employed. Labor force participation is lower among Trump supporters, but not after adjusting for age. Trump supporters are much more likely to be retired. Trump supporters live in smaller commuting zones with lower college attainment rates, a somewhat higher share of jobs in manufacturing, higher mortality rates for middle-aged whites, and a higher segregation.There is no statistically significant difference between Trump supporters and non-supporters with respect to the median household income of their zip-code, a proxy for neighborhood conditions.

This covers a lot of ground. It also is a statistical analysis of who but not of why. When I read about what the Trump supporters say, the word condescension frequently comes up. They feel that their lives are disrespected and they are tired of it.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-August-14, 11:37, said:

When I read about what the Trump supporters say, the word condescension frequently comes up. They feel that their lives are disrespected and they are tired of it.

It really sucks when the worm turns...

From my perspective, when I look at Trump voters I see a bunch of white trash that was able to console themselves that at least they had it better than the blacks, the Mexicans, and the gays.
Now they're being treated in exactly the same way, and they're finding out that it really sucks.

Sadly, rather than trying to elevate things for all those at the bottom of the pyramid, their response is more akin to crabs in a basket...