Trump

[pogo]

The problem is the registration requirements for individual states. To be on the ballot you need to register by a certain date. There may be other requirements, such as a local office, local representatives, which also need arranging. But the main thing is the date.

And for many states that date has passed. Anyone deciding to run now cannot be on the ballot in all the states, handing those states to their opponent(s). The latest you can do it is usually taken as around the national conferences, but I think it’s even earlier for some states.

There are two other people in the election, Gary Johnson the Libertarian, Jill Stein the Green. They are the only two other people who got their act together to get on the ballot in all of the states. In theory Johnson is a viable alternative for Republicans. Libertarianism is a respectable intellectual strand within Republicanism, and normally there is a Republican candidate in the primaries. But neither is going to win the election. The US system is especially unfair for third party candidates.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Vote for a third-party candidate?


That's the reason third-party candidates are popping up though. They act as a sink-hole for votes so Republicans who don't like Trump but refuse to vote Democrat have an option on election day, other than not voting. They at least get to vote for a candidate they like with values they agree with. It's a positive way to deal with the situation and might set some people up in the political arena for next time if they attract enough attention.
The train wreck of this election process is making people think about rail safety and how things could be done better.

[pogo]

There always are third party candidates, but they rarely have an impact. The exception, in living memory, is Ross Perot who may have helped Bill Clinton against George HW Bush in 1992, although probably Clinton would have won anyway. Perot got almost 20% of the vote. Gary Johnson is polling below 10%, Jill Stein maybe half that, so they sort of cancel each other out. There is no scenario in which a vote for either of them achieves anything.

[pogo]

Trump dubbed; the “Obama founded ISIS” speech that was the most recent example of him making a fool of himself, with the words spoken by someone else.

[gumboot]

If you want to put a stop to jokes people are too thick to get you're going to put an awful lot of people out of work and we'll be left with little more than slapstick, Bean, and crisp packets.

I don't

But it's like alcohol, not banned but acknowledged as a poison and tread carefully.

Quite honestly I'm happy for the status quo; jokes get made that may have a questionable effect and there's a considerable response pointing it out rather than banning anything.

The undercurrent I'm getting here is objection isn't a valid position but I'm think it's a necessary counterbalance.

Well, the weight of all the world's stupid people is an awful lot to expect anyone to bear (although Trump did deliberately gather them all together, so he's a special case). Contrast how often people say "that could be taken the wrong way" with how often they say "burn the racist".

I often think it's a pity that Trump takes heat for some of the things he says when I don't think those things genuinely represent the worst of him and are merely his own ineloquence being blown out of proportion. It detracts from the criticism of him for being a genuine arsehole.

[funkstar]

Trump is now recruiting "election observers" to make sure Clinton doesn't steal the election. So what that means is that he's actually proposing to send intimidation squads out to polling stations, which tends to be highly illegal in most democracies.

What the fucking fuck?

[(o)(o)]

Trump is now recruiting "election observers" to make sure Clinton doesn't steal the election. So what that means is that he's actually proposing to send intimidation squads out to polling stations, which tends to be highly illegal in most democracies.

What the fucking fuck?

USA seems to be turning into a rogue state.. and when that happens you know what's required according to American tradition..

" REGIME CHANGE " :

[merman]

Trump dubbed; the “Obama founded ISIS” speech that was the most recent example of him making a fool of himself, with the words spoken by someone else.

By Peter Serafinowicz, he's been tweeting them. And as he points out, every word is Trump's.

[pogo]

Trump is now recruiting "election observers" to make sure Clinton doesn't steal the election. So what that means is that he's actually proposing to send intimidation squads out to polling stations, which tends to be highly illegal in most democracies.

Even better, it’s especially illegal for Republicans. In theory “ballot observers” are beneficial and welcome. But not when they are Tea Party/Trump supporting Republicans, who think election fraud mostly occurs to deprive white Americans of their God-given right to govern. Like other Republican vote fraud suppression efforts it’s transparently racist.

And illegal. Because it‘s happened before, and got so bad the courts imposed a consent decree on the Republican Party, to outlaw precisely the sort of thing Trump is now suggesting.

Donald Trump May Be Violating RNC Consent Decree Aimed at Voter Intimidation

It‘s not just that they can’t engage in voter intimidation which is certainly illegal. They can’t engage in behaviour that might lead to voter intimidation, such as hanging out at polling booths, where there is a racial element to their choice of venue. Which of course there will be as that’s the whole point of it.

[KlaxonCow]

The American election rules have always been fair and perfectly non-discriminatory.



Oh. Okay, maybe not.

(And this was the '60s, after the Civil Rights movement happened.)


Edit - yeah, this is a bit of a digression from the main point. But you can see why all that intimidation nonsense reminded me of this little "test". Trump is going to "make America great again"... back to when it tried to do everything to stop blacks voting, it seems.

[pogo]

(And this was the '60s, after the Civil Rights movement happened.)

Actually Civil Rights mostly happened in the 1960s; in particular the laws that outlawed such tests were passed in 1964 and 1965. So that could be from the 60s but predate Civil Rights.

(Brown vs. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in education, was in 1954. But that was a court case and so had only a very narrow application, to schools)

Civil Rights laws did not end racism, much as the Confederacy losing the civil war and the abolition of slavery did not end racism. It just took new forms; in particular at the time of Civil Rights the Republican Party adopted its “Southern Strategy” of aligning itself with whites disillusioned with Civil Rights. They adopted strategies that appealed to such whites: social policies which appealed to whites who felt Blacks were disrupting the social order. Economic ones such as cuts to welfare (which also aligned with Republican preferences for lower taxes on the rich). Political ones such as states rights, to let states do their own racist thing without interference from Washington.

And all that has led to Trump. Republicans’ inability to roll back Civil Rights has made their supporters ever more distrustful. For these voters things have been getting worse: a Black president, Black celebrities and sports stars, Beyoncé. No wonder they are turning to extremists like Trump, out of desperation rather than any real hope.

[pogo]

It‘s even worse for Trump:

Right now polls show Donald Trump losing every single swing state

Clinton’s lead in the national polls is misleading as US elections are not won on the popular vote but by states. The election is fought in only a few states, as most are solidly Republican or Democrat. And Clinton is winning all of those “swing states”.

This is a consequence of Trump’s decision not have a ground game, the state-by-state part of the campaign that can win or lose and election. Clinton has been focussed on these states for months, spending money, time and resources on advertising, telephone campaigns, mailshots, voter registration efforts. And it’s showing.

[Darkflame]

So you think its positive actions by clinton, as apposed to negative actions by Trump?
I think his insults towards war heroes crossed the line for some, did that correspond to the downswing? (I know correlation isn't causation etc etc, although it feels like those remarks are particularly going to be taking badly by the "go america!!" crowd)

[pogo]

So you think its positive actions by clinton, as apposed to negative actions by Trump?
I think his insults towards war heroes crossed the line for some, did that correspond to the downswing? (I know correlation isn't causation etc etc, although it feels like those remarks are particularly going to be taking badly by the "go america!!" crowd)

I read a week ago (can’t remember now where) that as both are disliked their best strategy is to talk about each other. Clinton is doing this, Trump isn’t.

He tries. But he has trouble staying on message. Even when he targets Clinton it’s in ways that play well to the crowds at his rallies but sound ridiculous to ordinary voters. Clinton has senior Democrats helping her out – Obama in particular using his many opportunities to skewer Trump. Trump has driven away senior Republicans. And Clinton has a ground game, spending money on adverts, including ones highlighting Trump’s flaws, in swing states. Trump is lagging badly in his operations in these states.

[gilesgoat]

The American election rules have always been fair and perfectly non-discriminatory.

*SNIP*

Oh. Okay, maybe not.

(And this was the '60s, after the Civil Rights movement happened.)


Edit - yeah, this is a bit of a digression from the main point. But you can see why all that intimidation nonsense reminded me of this little "test". Trump is going to "make America great again"... back to when it tried to do everything to stop blacks voting, it seems.

.. I just saw this test because I was curious ....

Now no kidding that's bringing me back some memories ...

Have you ever tried to fill up the required forms and supply the required documents ( as specified in the forms ) to try to get an appointment with an US consulate to talk about immigration issues ?

And/or you should see/read the questionnaire an immigration officer at INS can read you about things ... ...

.. nuff said .. who knows what I am talking about knows ..