Presidential election, 2016

[FLBones]

clinton is going to win this year, marking a third consectutive term of democratic president, but not by a very wide margin. marking a third consecutive democratic president, first time since the last 4T this has happened. i know enthusastic trump voters will be angry and start blaming a "rigged" system. the other trump voters may not be so upset but only voted for him because they see him as the lesser evil. yes clinton will be in office and the rest of the government will be largely republican. due to this, it'll be interesting how well they'll work together and i have some doubts as to how many of her ideas actually come into fruition. clinton will be a one termer. she is 69 as of tomorrow. due to the stress of presidency, it will probably take a determinal effect on her health, aging her at least 15 years. look at obama from 2008 to now. clinton will most likely be a continuation of obama. i'm not sure if a war will break out with her or not. i think a war is more likely to occur in the early 2020s. whoever is elected in 2020 or 2024 will be our war president. this election is a regeneracy election, which explains the rise of trump.

there seems to be sides rising up. the democrats being associated with the wealthy corporate elites who want globalization to get speed up and support all these trade acts. You have the other democrats like the Sander/Johnson/Stein supporter types who are anti establishment and against free trade like the hardcore Trump supporters and want to focus on America only. However, they are going to vote for Clinton cause they see her as the lesser evil.

with the republicans, you have the blue collar working class making a movement towards the republican party. they want to end free trade, and are anti china and want to bring back manufacturing jobs. the other set of republicans are the wealthy elite ones who support free trade.

social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage seem to be out of the picture for now. whether or not the culture war of the unraveling era has ended remains to be seen.

[Eric the Green]

Voting for Stein or Johnson? Something to consider.





I'm Green, and I think I'm voting for Clinton. Why? To Repudiate Trump. A vote for Stein, who mainly attacks Hillary, is a vote against Hillary. I want to vote against Trump. So, Hillary it is. She attacks Trump.

[Eric the Green]

(10-25-2016, 11:03 AM)FLBones Wrote: clinton is going to win this year, marking a third consectutive term of democratic president, but not by a very wide margin. marking a third consecutive democratic president, first time since the last 4T this has happened. i know enthusastic trump voters will be angry and start blaming a "rigged" system. the other trump voters may not be so upset but only voted for him because they see him as the lesser evil. yes clinton will be in office and the rest of the government will be largely republican. due to this, it'll be interesting how well they'll work together and i have some doubts as to how many of her ideas actually come into fruition. clinton will be a one termer. she is 69 as of tomorrow. due to the stress of presidency, it will probably take a determinal effect on her health, aging her at least 15 years. look at obama from 2008 to now. clinton will most likely be a continuation of obama. i'm not sure if a war will break out with her or not. i think a war is more likely to occur in the early 2020s. whoever is elected in 2020 or 2024 will be our war president. this election is a regeneracy election, which explains the rise of trump.

Well said

Quote:there seems to be sides rising up. the democrats being associated with the wealthy corporate elites who want globalization to get speed up and support all these trade acts. You have the other democrats like the Sanders/Johnson/Stein supporter types who are anti establishment and against free trade like the hardcore Trump supporters and want to focus on America only. However, they are going to vote for Clinton cause they see her as the lesser evil.

Yes, although most Democrats are anti free trade and not corporate elites. Republicans are the ones who defer to them and promote them. The Bill Clinton type Democrats who went along with free trade are in the decided minority now. Hillary has no choice now but to oppose TPP.

Quote:with the republicans, you have the blue collar working class making a movement towards the republican party. they want to end free trade, and are anti china and want to bring back manufacturing jobs. the other set of republicans are the wealthy elite ones who support free trade.

Right...

Quote:social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage seem to be out of the picture for now. whether or not the culture war of the unraveling era has ended remains to be seen.

It is on the back burner; however, there's lots of Republicans who support Trump because he has come out against abortion, and a lot of them still vote only on that issue.

[Mikebert]

Here are the outcomes I foresee (based on 538 data). 

10% Democratic victory (Clinton wins and Dems win both houses of Congress)
13% Total Republican defeat (Trump wins & GOP retains both houses of Congress)
30% Total Democratic defeat (Clinton wins, but Dems fail to get Senate)
47% Tie (Clinton wins presidency and Dems win Senate)

This works out to nearly a 1 in 4 chance of a major win for Democrats (either Trump wins or Clinton gets landslide)
a 1 in 3 chance of the a near-extinction event for the Democrats
and a nearly even chance of a standoff between the parties.

Given the stubborn lack of resolution in this 4T I am betting on the third option.

[The Wonkette]

(10-25-2016, 03:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Here are the outcomes I foresee (based on 538 data). 

10% Democratic victory (Clinton wins and Dems win both houses of Congress)
13% Total Republican defeat (Trump wins & GOP retains both houses of Congress)
30% Total Democratic defeat (Clinton wins, but Dems fail to get Senate)
47% Tie (Clinton wins presidency and Dems win Senate)

This works out to nearly a 1 in 4 chance of a major win for Democrats (either Trump wins or Clinton gets landslide)
a 1 in 3 chance of the a near-extinction event for the Democrats
and a nearly even chance of a standoff between the parties.

Given the stubborn lack of resolution in this 4T I am betting on the third option.

How would Trump winning the Presidency and the GOP retaining control of the House and Senate be a "major win" for the Democrats?

[Eric the Green]

(10-26-2016, 01:58 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-26-2016, 12:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(10-25-2016, 03:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Here are the outcomes I foresee (based on 538 data). 

10% Democratic victory (Clinton wins and Dems win both houses of Congress)
13% Total Republican defeat (Trump wins & GOP retains both houses of Congress)
30% Total Democratic defeat (Clinton wins, but Dems fail to get Senate)
47% Tie (Clinton wins presidency and Dems win Senate)

This works out to nearly a 1 in 4 chance of a major win for Democrats (either Trump wins or Clinton gets landslide)
a 1 in 3 chance of the a near-extinction event for the Democrats
and a nearly even chance of a standoff between the parties.

Given the stubborn lack of resolution in this 4T I am betting on the third option.

How would Trump winning the Presidency and the GOP retaining control of the House and Senate be a "major win" for the Democrats?

Because Trump is a revolutionary, not an actual Republican. If Trump wins, he will complete the destruction of the Republican brand, especially if he gets impeached and convicted.

He's not going to win. His loss is baked in. The question is what he'll do after he loses. We'll see what kind of a man he really is. We suspect that he doesn't have a good course in him, and he's compromised. But who knows; he's a maverick and he goes all over the map.

[playwrite]

(10-26-2016, 05:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Microcosm of the nation:

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-...ng-states/

I see white people.

Especially, old retired white people ... and ... angry younger white people.

And ... everyone else!

Of course there are exceptions. For example, if you zoom way, way in, looking at the Jacksonville outer ring, you might see a little blue dot in a sea of red. I know her ... she's white, but ... a retired 1960s radical!

Somewhat related -

A friend pointed out that with a Clinton win, the youngest voters will have no experience of living under a White male Presidency; a minority or woman as the highest leader in the country will seem the natural state of things. 

This may be the biggest reason the alt-Right is freaking out. 

Kind of cool. 

[Bob Butler 54]

Here's a rarity.  Joel Stein of Time thinks This Is the Most Enlightening Election In More Than a Century as it is bringing a lot of social tensions to the surface.  We're talking about things that haven't been talked about for quite some time.  

Joel Stein Wrote:Brinkley and I both thought this election has done a lot of good for minorities, women and immigrants by making their plights more obvious. The only hole in my argument was that I had confirmed my theory with a white dude. So I cautiously ran my thesis by Representative Keith Ellison, who is black and the first Muslim elected to Congress. But he totally agreed. “This is about who is included in our nation,” said Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota. “There’s got to be a reason why no matter what Trump does, he doesn’t lose support.” He argued that because non-college-educated white men are losing power, they have no faith in government, corporations or the media, which they see as dismantling white European culture. Although, based on this, it is weird that they aren’t huge supporters of U.S. symphonies.

Emily May, who co-founded the anti-sexual-harassment campaign Hollaback!, also thought I had a point. She explained that one strategy in social change is polarization, where you create heated moments that force people to choose a side. “This election has created a lot of those moments,” she said. “The good thing is that, for the most part, people have jumped off the fence and into the direction of progress.” Others have jumped off the fence toward progress and condemned anti-progress while still officially endorsing it.

The down side is that women, minorities and children who had not been experiencing hatred and bigotry are now being exposed to it in more open and blatant ways.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN's Gregory Krieg wrote a piece, "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war".  

It was accompanied by a bunch of links to other articles and videos...  Trump Reporter verbally attacks CNN reporter, Trump supporter appears to hit protester at rally, Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is ‘inciting violence’, Ex-congressman defends violent tweet, Sheriff Clarke: Pitchfork and torches time in America, Joe Biden: I wish I could take Trump behind the gym, Trump: I’d love to fight ‘tough guy’ Biden".

We all emphasize different elements of turning theory.  One of my areas of interest is spirals of rhetoric and violence.  While part of the above would be media trying to stir up ratings, the incidents behind the articles seem real enough.

I do note a trend to mention archaic weapons when the Republicans are using inflammatory language.  They speak of pitchforks, torches and muskets, not high powered semi automatic weapons with large magazines.  This seems to be a trick of plausible deniability, a way of pretending they are speaking metaphorically rather than actually inciting violence.  To me, they are recklessly escalating the spiral of rhetoric without concern for the possible carry over into the spiral of violence.

Joe Walsh Wrote:"On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," Walsh wrote to his more than 78,000 followers. "You in?"

Remember, remember the ninth of November?

[TeacherinExile]

(10-28-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN's Gregory Krieg wrote a piece, "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war".  

It was accompanied by a bunch of links to other articles and videos...  Trump Reporter verbally attacks CNN reporter, Trump supporter appears to hit protester at rally, Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is ‘inciting violence’, Ex-congressman defends violent tweet, Sheriff Clarke: Pitchfork and torches time in America, Joe Biden: I wish I could take Trump behind the gym, Trump: I’d love to fight ‘tough guy’ Biden".

We all emphasize different elements of turning theory.  One of my areas of interest is spirals of rhetoric and violence.  While part of the above would be media trying to stir up ratings, the incidents behind the articles seem real enough.

I do note a trend to mention archaic weapons when the Republicans are using inflammatory language.  They speak of pitchforks, torches and muskets, not high powered semi automatic weapons with large magazines.  This seems to be a trick of plausible deniability, a way of pretending they are speaking metaphorically rather than actually inciting violence.  To me, they are recklessly escalating the spiral of rhetoric without concern for the possible carry over into the spiral of violence.

Joe Walsh Wrote:"On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," Walsh wrote to his more than 78,000 followers. "You in?"

Remember, remember the ninth of November?

Anyone with an interest in how a spiral of hateful rhetoric can spark actual violence against "The Other," I would highly suggest the book The Eliminationists by David Neiwert.  It was published some years ago during the George W. Bush administration, but his book is no less apropos today.  As evidenced by some of the hateful rhetoric--and small-scale violence--on display at some of Trump's rallies and at the RNC Convention, we are witnessing glimmers (and I stress, glimmers only, so far) of what has preceded the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacre.  Let us hope that, once Trump is dispatched on Election Day, such rhetoric does not escalate...

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2016, 12:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(10-26-2016, 05:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Microcosm of the nation:

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-...ng-states/

I see white people.

Especially, old retired white people ... and ... angry younger white people.

And ... everyone else!

Of course there are exceptions. For example, if you zoom way, way in, looking at the Jacksonville outer ring, you might see a little blue dot in a sea of red. I know her ... she's white, but ... a retired 1960s radical!

Somewhat related -

A friend pointed out that with a Clinton win, the youngest voters will have no experience of living under a White male Presidency; a minority or woman as the highest leader in the country will seem the natural state of things. 

This may be the biggest reason the alt-Right is freaking out. 

Kind of cool. 

The order is rapidly fading, for the times they are a-changing!

[Bob Butler 54]

Another CNN article, "The narcissism of Donald Trump's candidacy", by Dr. Alan J. Lipman, a former professor at Georgetown University.

In general, it is considered bad for for a psychologist to diagnose individuals he has not had a chance to personally examine.  A few psychologists seem to think there ought to be an exception to that rule when a dangerously unstable individual has been nominated for president by a major party.

Dr. Alan J. Lipman Wrote:The problem for Trump is that no one can ever find complete agreement, can ever receive constant fealty and admiration. This has been the wish and the downfall of dictators and nations through the ages. Their ashes lay beneath our feet.

Yet here is Trump, consumed with every trivial slight. A man who lacks empathy for the consequences of his actions upon broad swaths of the American public. A man with a fundamental need for conflict and with a remorseless willingness to use the most destructive tools of society towards those with whom he disagrees and who he feels have betrayed him.

Bereft of knowledge, of the empathy that drives and is essential for actual service, Trump is willing to act upon impulse, without knowledge, and is driven by fury. He is a candidate with the potential to bring a democratic republic down with him.

[pbrower2a]

(10-28-2016, 11:27 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(10-28-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN's Gregory Krieg wrote a piece, "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war".  

It was accompanied by a bunch of links to other articles and videos...  Trump Reporter verbally attacks CNN reporter, Trump supporter appears to hit protester at rally, Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is ‘inciting violence’, Ex-congressman defends violent tweet, Sheriff Clarke: Pitchfork and torches time in America, Joe Biden: I wish I could take Trump behind the gym, Trump: I’d love to fight ‘tough guy’ Biden".

We all emphasize different elements of turning theory.  One of my areas of interest is spirals of rhetoric and violence.  While part of the above would be media trying to stir up ratings, the incidents behind the articles seem real enough.

I do note a trend to mention archaic weapons when the Republicans are using inflammatory language.  They speak of pitchforks, torches and muskets, not high powered semi automatic weapons with large magazines.  This seems to be a trick of plausible deniability, a way of pretending they are speaking metaphorically rather than actually inciting violence.  To me, they are recklessly escalating the spiral of rhetoric without concern for the possible carry over into the spiral of violence.

Joe Walsh Wrote:"On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," Walsh wrote to his more than 78,000 followers. "You in?"

Remember, remember the ninth of November?

Anyone with an interest in how a spiral of hateful rhetoric can spark actual violence against "The Other," I would highly suggest the book The Eliminationists by David Neiwert.  It was published some years ago during the George W. Bush administration, but his book is no less apropos today.  As evidenced by some of the hateful rhetoric--and small-scale violence--on display at some of Trump's rallies and at the RNC Convention, we are witnessing glimmers (and I stress, glimmers only, so far) of what has preceded the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacre.  Let us hope that, once Trump is dispatched on Election Day, such rhetoric does not escalate...

Because any discernible minority by race, ethnicity, religion, linguistic heritage, sexual orientation, or even handicap is a potential victim of a dictatorial regime, many of us have good cause to reject the first phase of the decay of democracy. Beware the demagogue!

I hate to bring up Hitler... but he never promised to leave a Germany a nation in shame and ruin, disgraced for what its armies and paramilitary forces did to millions, and partitioned by foreign powers. He never promised the Holocaust, let alone aggressive war that would allow American and Soviet armies to meet. Hitler never promised a war even more destructive than World War II. Of course Hitler may not have wanted such things, even the Holocaust, in 1932. Hitler sought to bring back national pride, and by 1936 the Germans (unless they were Jewish) were proud to be Germans. In 1946 "German" was a badge of shame.

I mention Hitler because my detail on what Lenin and Mao promised isn't so strong. Marxism promises to jump-start economic growth by getting capitalist indulgence out of the way.

The Germans of 1932 had less of an excuse than the pervasively-ignorant, superstitious Russians of 1917 and Chinese of 1949 whose countries had been wracked in destructive war. Germans had fair warning of the street brawls, and they were literate enough to understand that Hitler promised too many things, many of those contradicting each other, to too many people.

What is our excuse as Americans for voting for the most successful demagogue in American history?

[Eric the Green]

[TeacherinExile]

(10-28-2016, 11:27 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(10-28-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN's Gregory Krieg wrote a piece, "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war".  

It was accompanied by a bunch of links to other articles and videos...  Trump Reporter verbally attacks CNN reporter, Trump supporter appears to hit protester at rally, Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is ‘inciting violence’, Ex-congressman defends violent tweet, Sheriff Clarke: Pitchfork and torches time in America, Joe Biden: I wish I could take Trump behind the gym, Trump: I’d love to fight ‘tough guy’ Biden".

We all emphasize different elements of turning theory.  One of my areas of interest is spirals of rhetoric and violence.  While part of the above would be media trying to stir up ratings, the incidents behind the articles seem real enough.

I do note a trend to mention archaic weapons when the Republicans are using inflammatory language.  They speak of pitchforks, torches and muskets, not high powered semi automatic weapons with large magazines.  This seems to be a trick of plausible deniability, a way of pretending they are speaking metaphorically rather than actually inciting violence.  To me, they are recklessly escalating the spiral of rhetoric without concern for the possible carry over into the spiral of violence.

Joe Walsh Wrote:"On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," Walsh wrote to his more than 78,000 followers. "You in?"

Remember, remember the ninth of November?

Anyone with an interest in how a spiral of hateful rhetoric can spark actual violence against "The Other," I would highly suggest the book The Eliminationists by David Neiwert.  It was published some years ago during the George W. Bush administration, but his book is no less apropos today.  As evidenced by some of the hateful rhetoric--and small-scale violence--on display at some of Trump's rallies and at the RNC Convention, we are witnessing glimmers (and I stress, glimmers only, so far) of what has preceded the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacre.  Let us hope that, once Trump is dispatched on Election Day, such rhetoric does not escalate...

I have tended to agree with Bob Butler in the past that we were not close enough (yet) to the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that triggers a spiral of violence against "The Other."  I am now prepared to say--seven years after David Neiwert first published his prescient book--that we are now dancing on the edge of the abyss.  The hate speech--and let's call it what it is--is no longer limited to the extremist windbags of talk radio or cable TV.  As author and journalist Chris Hedges has said before, "America Is a Tinderbox," and Trump and his ilk seem hell bent on lighting the match. 

"Trump rally speaker fantasizes about death of Hillary Clinton"

LAS VEGAS — A speaker warming up the crowd for Donald Trump at a campaign rally fantasized about the deaths of Hillary Clinton and a senior aide on Sunday morning.

Conservative commentator Wayne Allyn Root describing his fantasy of a made-for-TV movie about Clinton and aide Huma Abedin, said, “We all get our wish. The ending is like ‘Thelma and Louise.” In the 1991 film, the title characters drive over a cliff to their death. Root’s line drew cheers from rally attendees.

Root’s call is the latest elevation in the increasingly extreme and violent rhetoric directed by Trump and his surrogates at Clinton at campaign events...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-abedin-death-230510#ixzz4Ob1sS3zn

Those who utter such rhetoric may claim that their speech is merely allusive or archaic, and not an incitement to violence, but it is highly suggestive--and very, very dangerous in the current political climate.

[Mikebert]

(10-26-2016, 01:58 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-26-2016, 12:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(10-25-2016, 03:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Here are the outcomes I foresee (based on 538 data). 

10% Democratic victory (Clinton wins and Dems win both houses of Congress)
13% Total Republican defeat (Trump wins & GOP retains both houses of Congress)
30% Total Democratic defeat (Clinton wins, but Dems fail to get Senate)
47% Tie (Clinton wins presidency and Dems win Senate)

This works out to nearly a 1 in 4 chance of a major win for Democrats (either Trump wins or Clinton gets landslide)
a 1 in 3 chance of the a near-extinction event for the Democrats
and a nearly even chance of a standoff between the parties.

Given the stubborn lack of resolution in this 4T I am betting on the third option.

How would Trump winning the Presidency and the GOP retaining control of the House and Senate be a "major win" for the Democrats?

Because Trump is a revolutionary, not an actual Republican. If Trump wins, he will complete the destruction of the Republican brand, especially if he gets impeached and convicted.

Yeah, this is what I had in mind.

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2016, 02:01 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(10-28-2016, 11:27 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(10-28-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN's Gregory Krieg wrote a piece, "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war".  

It was accompanied by a bunch of links to other articles and videos...  Trump Reporter verbally attacks CNN reporter, Trump supporter appears to hit protester at rally, Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is ‘inciting violence’, Ex-congressman defends violent tweet, Sheriff Clarke: Pitchfork and torches time in America, Joe Biden: I wish I could take Trump behind the gym, Trump: I’d love to fight ‘tough guy’ Biden".

We all emphasize different elements of turning theory.  One of my areas of interest is spirals of rhetoric and violence.  While part of the above would be media trying to stir up ratings, the incidents behind the articles seem real enough.

I do note a trend to mention archaic weapons when the Republicans are using inflammatory language.  They speak of pitchforks, torches and muskets, not high powered semi automatic weapons with large magazines.  This seems to be a trick of plausible deniability, a way of pretending they are speaking metaphorically rather than actually inciting violence.  To me, they are recklessly escalating the spiral of rhetoric without concern for the possible carry over into the spiral of violence.

Joe Walsh Wrote:"On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," Walsh wrote to his more than 78,000 followers. "You in?"

Remember, remember the ninth of November?

Anyone with an interest in how a spiral of hateful rhetoric can spark actual violence against "The Other," I would highly suggest the book The Eliminationists by David Neiwert.  It was published some years ago during the George W. Bush administration, but his book is no less apropos today.  As evidenced by some of the hateful rhetoric--and small-scale violence--on display at some of Trump's rallies and at the RNC Convention, we are witnessing glimmers (and I stress, glimmers only, so far) of what has preceded the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacre.  Let us hope that, once Trump is dispatched on Election Day, such rhetoric does not escalate...

I have tended to agree with Bob Butler in the past that we were not close enough (yet) to the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that triggers a spiral of violence against "The Other."  I am now prepared to say--seven years after David Neiwert first published his prescient book--that we are now dancing on the edge of the abyss.  The hate speech--and let's call it what it is--is no longer limited to the extremist windbags of talk radio or cable TV.  As author and journalist Chris Hedges has said before, "America Is a Tinderbox," and Trump and his ilk seem hell bent on lighting the match. 

"Trump rally speaker fantasizes about death of Hillary Clinton"

LAS VEGAS — A speaker warming up the crowd for Donald Trump at a campaign rally fantasized about the deaths of Hillary Clinton and a senior aide on Sunday morning.

Conservative commentator Wayne Allyn Root describing his fantasy of a made-for-TV movie about Clinton and aide Huma Abedin, said, “We all get our wish. The ending is like ‘Thelma and Louise.” In the 1991 film, the title characters drive over a cliff to their death. Root’s line drew cheers from rally attendees.

Root’s call is the latest elevation in the increasingly extreme and violent rhetoric directed by Trump and his surrogates at Clinton at campaign events...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-abedin-death-230510#ixzz4Ob1sS3zn

Those who utter such rhetoric may claim that their speech is merely allusive or archaic, and not an incitement to violence, but it is highly suggestive--and very, very dangerous in the current political climate.

Some anti-Hillary as well as pro-Hillary astrologers are saying she's in danger around the time of the inauguration. I am thinking we should give her a gentle warning not to put herself needlessly in danger; to stay protected. The "alt-right" is really crazy and irrational; they have no sense of facts, or respect for people they oppose or for the republic as it stands.

[The Wonkette]

(10-28-2016, 06:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I hate to bring up Hitler... but he never promised to leave a Germany a nation in shame and ruin, disgraced for what its armies and paramilitary forces did to millions, and partitioned by foreign powers. He never promised the Holocaust, let alone aggressive war that would allow American and Soviet armies to meet. Hitler never promised a war even more destructive than World War II. Of course Hitler may not have wanted such things, even the Holocaust, in 1932. Hitler sought to bring back national pride, and by 1936 the Germans (unless they were Jewish) were proud to be Germans. In 1946 "German" was a badge of shame.

Actually, Hitler did promise the Holocaust.  From the get-go, he wanted to rid Germany of the evil influence of Jews.  You can see that in his writings.  Getting rid of the Jews was part of his plan to restore the pride and purity of the German nation.

[Odin]

(10-30-2016, 02:01 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I have tended to agree with Bob Butler in the past that we were not close enough (yet) to the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that triggers a spiral of violence against "The Other."  I am now prepared to say--seven years after David Neiwert first published his prescient book--that we are now dancing on the edge of the abyss.  The hate speech--and let's call it what it is--is no longer limited to the extremist windbags of talk radio or cable TV.  As author and journalist Chris Hedges has said before, "America Is a Tinderbox," and Trump and his ilk seem hell bent on lighting the match. 

"Trump rally speaker fantasizes about death of Hillary Clinton"

LAS VEGAS — A speaker warming up the crowd for Donald Trump at a campaign rally fantasized about the deaths of Hillary Clinton and a senior aide on Sunday morning.

Conservative commentator Wayne Allyn Root describing his fantasy of a made-for-TV movie about Clinton and aide Huma Abedin, said, “We all get our wish. The ending is like ‘Thelma and Louise.” In the 1991 film, the title characters drive over a cliff to their death. Root’s line drew cheers from rally attendees.

Root’s call is the latest elevation in the increasingly extreme and violent rhetoric directed by Trump and his surrogates at Clinton at campaign events...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-abedin-death-230510#ixzz4Ob1sS3zn

Those who utter such rhetoric may claim that their speech is merely allusive or archaic, and not an incitement to violence, but it is highly suggestive--and very, very dangerous in the current political climate.

I've noticed that in the past couple weeks there has been a wave of bitter, childish, angry Bernie Sanders supporters on Millie-dominated sites like Reddit openly supporting Trump because they are so enraged that they openly want to "burn everything down", It's sickening that so many grown men (and it is almost exclusively men spewing this shit) are acting like spoiled toddlers throwing a temper tantrum against "the system" because they didn't get their way in the primaries. These people are unironically regurgitating 25 years of right-wing lies about the Clintons as if it were gospel truth.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-30-2016, 02:01 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I have tended to agree with Bob Butler in the past that we were not close enough (yet) to the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that triggers a spiral of violence against "The Other."  I am now prepared to say--seven years after David Neiwert first published his prescient book--that we are now dancing on the edge of the abyss.  The hate speech--and let's call it what it is--is no longer limited to the extremist windbags of talk radio or cable TV.  As author and journalist Chris Hedges has said before, "America Is a Tinderbox," and Trump and his ilk seem hell bent on lighting the match. 

I don't like where the deplorable wing of the Republican party is going with their rhetoric one bit, but it isn't spilling into violence yet. Then again, Trump hasn't lost the "rigged" election yet, either.

The other factor is that spirals spiral most when both sides are into it. The logic seems to be that an act of violence should intimidate the other side into backing down... when in fact the act of violence will often tick off the other side into reacting with a greater act of violence. While the deplorables are spinning hate, neither the government nor opposing political activists seem to be talking up the possibility of responding to violence with violence.

There is an awful lot of talk. I'm not sure we are truly set to explode. We'll see soon enough.