Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[André]

Thanks, Todd for the explanation.

Still, it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness. I doubt that's what Lincoln had in mind in his Gettysburg address.

[Todd]

Still, it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness. I doubt that's what Lincoln had in mind in his Gettysburg address.

Lincoln is not as universally loved as many outside the US may think. 

[André]

Thanks. I suppose we all fall prey to stereotypes. They are a convenient way to "get the picture" from a far away place and time. But their usefulness (and truthfulness) are made of clay feet, I guess.

Ask me about stereotypes about canadian identity... 

[Florestan]

it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness.

Nothing tickling about it, actually. The USA was born out of sedition. It´s only natural that some Americans associate anti-government with patriotism. As Todd has pointed out, it´s been a constant of American politics ever since the creation of the USA.

Generally speaking, differentiating between a country and its government is an eminently reasonable thing to do.

[zamyrabyrd]

[drogulus]

     The revenge of the 'Oxy electorate' helped fuel Trump's election upset

     

[Tritone]

This is about the most intelligent observation I've read about the post-Trump world and the revenge of the intolerant, so-called progressive left/liberals:  it deals with the Left's fondness for appalling labels -

The term "white supremacist" must not be understood as having any specific meaning, it is just a marker to designate anyone who does not conform with PC dogma. The same applies to terms like "racist", "homophobic", "sexist" or "climate denier". There is no intellectual substance behind these words and they are not meant to be disputed. They act like emotive adjectives rather than nouns. Like yellow stars on Jews, they are signifiers of moral inferiority and warnings to the populace that these people are undesirables (deplorables).
Once a single and all encompassing ideology becomes hegemonic, debate is over and any deviance is met with horror as it suggests the possibility of doubt. But doubt cannot be entertained as the system has equated its specific ideas with universal truths and righteousness. Anti discrimination or environmentalism are meant to mean good, virtuous and desirable, anyone objecting to these ideas is objecting to good things.
There is an excellent short book by the Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pr... that I urge anyone with an interest in politics to read. It describes how Western democracies have become increasingly like the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union they also had a number of code words to pathologise dissenters and make their views beyond the pale without any previous scrutiny. Words like "capitalist" " burgeoise" or "parasite" fulfilled the same purpose as "racist" or "supremacist"
For somebody like Steve Bannon of Breitbart to try and argue that he is not racist is futile. There was never any intention to describe any specific idea, the word supremacist is purely superstitious, like a voodoo doll, it stains by association not by reasoned conclusions.

[Parsifal]

This has become a political football for both sides, but here is the story from the source:

A computer science professor specializing in computer security has proposed an audit of ballet counts in some states showing statistical anomalies.

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.jraxd5u5s

He does not claim that it is likely that tampering occurred, but thinks it would be a prudent action to check.

[drogulus]

   

This is about the most intelligent observation I've read about the post-Trump world and the revenge of the intolerant, so-called progressive left/liberals:  it deals with the Left's fondness for appalling labels -

The term "white supremacist" must not be understood as having any specific meaning, it is just a marker to designate anyone who does not conform with PC dogma. The same applies to terms like "racist", "homophobic", "sexist" or "climate denier". There is no intellectual substance behind these words and they are not meant to be disputed. They act like emotive adjectives rather than nouns.

     Are there no climate deniers or white supremacists worthy of the name, but only people incoherently accused of a "non thing"? If, like me, you were critical of the excesses of PC you would not maintain this. I think people shouldn't call others racist without good cause, and the term and others are often thrown around recklessly. They also figure in radical analyses among academics and political activists that I oppose on a variety of grounds.

     My objection, quite distinct from yours I see, is that it coarsens debate to make it about what a person "is". It should be about what a person supports. It should be about the relevant arguments. But also I judge it appropriate to identify the nature of some arguments as homophobic and antisemitic to the extent they were intended to be, or that some positions moved on other grounds like religious freedom for example, have that effect.

     

"Once a single and all encompassing ideology becomes hegemonic, debate is over and any deviance is met with horror as it suggests the possibility of doubt."

     This is a fairly coercive argument in itself. Like the worst of the PC-ers you want to move your argument beyond refutation in the manner of theology. Anything so far from challenge is beyond comprehension, your absolute correctness is no longer about anything. No one is a racist because it's ideology all the way down, the PC-ers and you.

[Karl Henning]

He said (or, wrote) thusly!

Because she simply wasn't a good candidate.

[SimonNZ]

He said (or, wrote) thusly!

Because she simply wasn't a good candidate.

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that article.

[Karl Henning]

Cheers, Simon!

Background is, that Chris Cillizza has a weekly "Who had the worst week in Washington?" piece, so this is somewhat in that tradition, and is probably at least a little tongue in cheek.  Also, in a media environment where many (even on this thread) are apt to deride any media source as negatively biased, for the mere reason that they disagree with what is said, I think Cillizza has done a better job than most, of having something good or bad to say of whomever, without front-loading a political filter.

"It's impossible to overstate how big a favorite the former secretary of state was in both her primary fight against Bernie Sanders and the general election matchup against Donald Trump. She was the biggest non-incumbent front-runner for the White House in modern political history."

Yes.  She had pretty much smoothed the path before herself before the primary season had begun;  that was both an advantage to her, and yet something which rankled a great deal of the electorate — the primaries should be a process, and not a rubber stamp.  In a season where anti-BAU(*) sentiment ran high, it was an advantage which came with a heavy discount.

"And yet, from the start, it was clear that Clinton's appeal on paper didn't match her appeal in the real world of political campaigning. She badly underestimated Sanders's appeal from the start and then, because of ongoing doubts about her commitment to liberal causes, found it difficult to attack the senator from Vermont. As a result, a primary that was expected to be a coronation turned into a long-lasting problem — exposing the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, particularly among young voters."

Fairly early on, it was remarked how both Clinton and El Tupé enjoyed (if that be the right word) "historically high unfavorable ratings."  Even among Americans who did not suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome — e.g., "that woman is pure evil"), there is a high incidence of old-fashioned Clinton Fatigue.

"[El Tupé], for all his talk and inexperience, represented radical change. Clinton represented more of the same politics people hated."

For all his vile talk, for all his blandly ignorant talk, for all his con-manly duplicitous talk, he is other than BAU.

"She lost because she was overly cautious. Because she was slow to adjust to a changed race — in the primary and the general election. Because she never really connected with voters. Because she offered no positive message that resonated with those voters. Because she never grasped the import to her candidacy of the email story. Because she simply wasn't a good candidate."

And in many of these respects, because she could not but be herself.

That paragraph makes it look like she simply wasn't a good candidate is just a sum of the parts, but many of us remember, e.g., her response to Anderson Cooper when he asked her about the handsome speaking fee from Goldman, Sachs & Co., and her undeniably genuine response was, "Well, that's what they offered."  Horribly bad candidate.

(*) BAU = Business As Usual

[SimonNZ]

Thanks very much for that.

[drogulus]

     In August I wrote this:

     
     I've spent some time in the last few months embedded in the Russo-Trumpese troll-o-sphere. The Business Insider website operates as a low-functioning business/economics aggregator/advertorialist, and the low function part shows up in its unmoderated comments on its articles, some of which are for real articles, with many "10 best cities for poor people with fearsome insect life and 103 degree heat", that kind of thing. There are also insanely popular hoodies that are now available!

     Anyway, the presence of a distinctively Russian troll operation has been increasingly evident. I note that counter trolls fling the accusation and, interestingly, it's rarely denied. The vile content of the megatrolls that use multiple identities, and the incompetence, obvious copy/pasting and inability to form proper sentences of the bot-like provide clues, but it's the combination of praise for Putin and Trump, and how they are kept separate that also sends a signal. The countertrolls seem freelance (there are more actual people with distinct voices among the anti-Trumps, some of whom make it clear they really dislike Hillary). But here's something I've noticed, neither the megatrolls who are the most vicious and the bot-like lesser ones will praise Putin and Trump in the same comment. Given how undisclined the group is about how lies, bullshit, rumors are intermingled with the truth this does stand out. Trump is wonderful here, Putin is wonderful there, but somehow they'd rather not be seen as wonderful together. OK, I could be wrong but it's a "tell".

     Anyway Pt. II, BI is now starting to cover the story, though not yet acknowledging its own involvement. I sent them an email on the subject of how the trolls have "crowded out" normal discussion a few days ago. I've no reason to think this has influenced the decision to publish this article, therefore I claim credit:

It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans

   

     

[Todd]

From NBC Nightly News tonight:




Would you like to know more?

[drogulus]

      It would be nice to flesh out the details of the part of the operation I witnessed, how it was done, etc.

      Nice filmic reference, btw.....

     

     

[snyprrr]

Chris Cillizza

You and Chris... mm mm mm,... the entire editorial staff of the WP was shown colluding with HRC campaign... come on Karl, can't you find someone less compromised? mmkay?

I've been making sure to keep up on their "Russians did it" SOURCES... gosh, they never do come up with actual SOURCES that can be verified by anyone,... gosh...

Cilizza, Milbank, Marcus, Cohen... oh gosh, is it that it would be considered antisemantic(!) to criticize them, even on their obviousness?


Was not the WP totally compromised by the leaks?? Sure seems like it. How can you take anything they say as not just pure politics? Are they really reporters/journalists, or are they apparachnikz???

The Bolshevik Times

[Todd]

Senator Cory Booker will testify against Senator Jeff Sessions in unprecedented publicity stunt/presidential campaign photo-op cum soundbite cum meme generator testimony. 

2020 or 2024?

(It's too early to start a 2020 thread, right?)

[Monsieur Croche]

This meeting...

[Karl Henning]

This meeting...

Perfect.