Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2016 22:40

GShankar wrote:Looking at the US response to India's surgical raids in Pak, I am thinking it is overall favorable. Any reason this will change if either of HC or DT become p-ot-us? Is our current brotherhood temporary? Thoughts?


GS ji,

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7220&p=2051883#p2051883

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 01 Oct 2016 00:56

NRao wrote:Interesting ..............

Ohio, Long a Bellwether, Is Fading on the Electoral Map


look at the path to victory and current margins from nate silver. this is his "polls plus" which adds his assumptions to the model from "polls only" -

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... promo#plus

even with ohio, trump still needs to flip at least 3 blue leaning states as of now - FL, NV and CO with increasing trails behind clinton. FL and NV looks doable, but CO seems like too big a gap.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 01 Oct 2016 11:34


Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4547
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Oct 2016 12:22

^ Hope its not half truth like "Ashwathama Maara gayaa.."

Second part came later :

"Par nar nahin kunjar."

Hopefully it doesn't turn out a well prepared Taqiyya by Huma Abedin :

"Hillary Clinton fears emergence of nuclear suicide bombers from Pakistan..." Part 1

second part after winning the election :

"So our Govt. gives 50 billion dollar civilian and 20 billion dollar military aid to prevent such nuclear suicide bombers..."

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby panduranghari » 01 Oct 2016 13:22

Virtue Signaling, or … Why Clinton is in Trouble

Image
Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic president.

Donald Trump would be a catastrophe.

― LA Times Editorial Board endorsement, September 23, 2016

Yep, gotta get me some of that pragmatism! It’s code for “typical lying politician”, and of course the LA Times knows it.

After opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention. Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position.

She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt.

― New York Times Editorial Board endorsement, September 25, 2016.


With passive-aggressive friends like these …

Image

As a result I am arguing for modest, gradual tightening now, out of concern that not doing so today will put the recovery’s duration and sustainability at greater risk, by generating the sorts of significant imbalances that historically have led to a recession.

― Statement of Eric S. Rosengren, Commenting on Dissenting Vote at the Meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, September 23, 2016

It’s not just the number of dissents on last week’s FOMC vote, it’s the argument. Rosengren says the Fed is causing the next recession.

Roger Mudd: Why do you want to be president?
Ted Kennedy: The reasons I would run are because I have great belief in this country, that is — there’s more natural resources than any nation in the world, there’s the greatest educated population in the world. It just seems to me that this nation can cope and deal with the problems in a way it has done in the past … and I would basically feel that it’s imperative for the country to either move forward, that it can’t stand still or otherwise it moves backwards.
― CBS interview with Ted Kennedy, October 1979


And just like that, Kennedy was finished. My question for Yellen: why do you want to be Fed chair?

― David Malki, “In which War is waged”, September 13, 2016

I was in Los Angeles last week, and the Clinton anti-Trump TV ads were in heavy rotation. It’s not because the Clinton campaign is worried about the California vote, because if they were then the election would already be irredeemably lost. No, the ads are being run in the metro LA area so that Clinton supporters (and donors!) can feel good about themselves. It’s like throwing a massively expensive dinner party to congratulate yourself for all the money you’ve raised to feed the poor.


Isaac: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Ya know? I read it in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, ya know, get some bricks and baseball bats, and really explain things to ’em.
Party Guest: There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times, just devastating.
Isaac: Whoa, whoa. A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it.
Helen: Oh, but really biting satire is always better than physical force.
Isaac: No, physical force is always better with Nazis.
― Woody Allen, “Manhattan” (1979)


Epsilon Theory readers know where I stand on this. It’s just another instantiation of the Common Knowledge game, where everyone knows that everyone knows that John Oliver is funny, but no one actually thinks that he’s funny. Want to see effective (that is, subversive) political humor? Watch anything by Groucho Marx. Want to see ineffective (that is, status quo) political humor? Watch anything by these supercilious scolds. At least Samantha Bee gets the joke.

Image

We do not place especial value on the possession of a virtue until we notice its total absence in our opponent.
― Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)



PolitiFact, a Tampa Bay Times site that won a Pulitzer for its coverage of the 2008 election, has rated 70% of the Trump statements it has checked as mostly false, false or “pants on fire,” its lowest score. By contrast, 28% of Clinton’s statements earned those ratings.

― Michael Finnegan, LA Times “Scope of Trump’s falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate”, September 25, 2016


The fact-checker’s inspirational battle cry: “Lying only 28 percent of the time!”

The people complaining about “false balance” usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media’s supposed incompetence. They’re quite sure of whom to vote for and why. Their complaints are really about the impact that “false balance” coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs. Which is not just snobbish, but laughably snobbish.

So, shut up.

― Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone “Stop Whining About ‘False Balance’”, September 16, 2016

Wait … Clinton apparatchiks are snobbish?


As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.

― Lionel Shriver, The New York Times “Will the Left Survive the Millennials?”, September 23, 2016


There are real bigots out there. Real misogynists. Real anti-Semites. Real alt-right “deplorables”. None of them are university professors. None of them are novelists. But if you want to see what the real thing looks like, just keep doing this sort of insanely misplaced virtue signaling.


I did not break up the Beatles. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to blame me for breaking the Beatles up, you should be thankful that I made them into myth rather than a crumbling group.

― Yoko Ono (b. 1933)

Common Knowledge today: Donald Trump is the Yoko Ono of the Republican Party.

Common Knowledge tomorrow: Hillary Clinton is the Yoko Ono of the Democratic Party.


If you’ve ever played a team sport, you’ve experienced a game that was a mismatch on paper. Now usually that game goes according to form. The better team scores early and often, and the inferior team doesn’t sniff a win. But sometimes the game gets tight. Sometimes the better team makes a few unforced errors, and the inferior team capitalizes. Sometimes there’s a lucky bounce of the ball for the inferior team. And then another. And another.

There’s a moment in every game of this unexpected type — the upset in the making — when the individual players on the better team (call them the status quo team) begin to doubt. They feel the game slipping away, even though they know that they’re the better team. What happens to many players in that moment of doubt is, to use the game theoretic phrase, they decide to defect. It doesn’t mean that they quit. It doesn’t mean that they give up. In fact, without exception, they all believe that their team will still prevail. But they start to think about what a loss, however improbable, would mean for their personal, individual goals. They never even entertained those thoughts at the beginning of the game. It was all about the team, and a team victory would naturally go hand in hand with personal development and personal goals. But now … now that the unthinkable is suddenly thinkable … they start acting directly in favor of their own self-interest, not the team’s communal interest. They start signaling their virtue.

Virtue signaling is a behavior that visibly demonstrates the individual qualities of the player to some external audience, whether or not it improves the chances of the team to win. It’s not overtly detrimental to the team. In fact, for all outward appearances it’s rather supportive of the team. But it makes all the difference in the world if an offensive lineman is more concerned with making HIS block than protecting the quarterback no matter what. It makes all the difference in the world if a shooting guard is more concerned with meeting HIS scoring average than playing team defense. It makes all the difference in the world if a Democratic Party functionary is more concerned with tweeting HIS outrage at the latest nonsense that Trump is spouting than in volunteering for a get-out-the-vote effort in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Virtue signaling is an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. If the team ends up winning … hey, I did my part. Didn’t you read that blistering anti-Trump op-ed piece I oh-so bravely penned in The New York Times? If the team ends up losing … hey, don’t look at me. Didn’t you read that blistering anti-Trump op-ed piece I oh-so bravely penned in The New York Times? It’s an entirely rational set of behaviors that seeks to insulate yourself from the inevitable blame game if things go wrong (the infamous circular firing squad of American party politics, particularly on the Democratic side) while still preserving your place in the victory parade if things go well.


If you follow football closely, you’ll hear a phrase that players and position coaches use in an entirely positive light: selling out. They don’t mean a sell-out in the way the phrase is generally used, either as a full house insalient-epsilon-theory-ben-hunt-virtue-signaling-september-30-2016-cutler terms of ticket sales or, pejoratively, as a person who’s chosen money over authenticity. No, they mean it as a compliment. When you sell out on a play or a coach’s game plan, it means that you commit fully. It means that you are prepared to embarrass yourself by your single-minded pursuit of a team victory. It’s the absolute opposite of virtue signaling, and there is no higher praise for a teammate than to say he “sold out” in a game. I see no one willing to “sell out” for Clinton, and that tells me that, in a close game, she’s in a lot of trouble. If Clinton were an NFL quarterback, she’d be Jay Cutler of the Chicago Bears, a player who is infamously difficult for his teammates to support or rally around. No one has ever sold out for Jay Cutler. Now in his 11th season, Cutler’s teams have made the playoffs once. Once.

What I DO see for Clinton is virtue signaling galore among her supporters, including her own campaign staff. It’s the fact checking fetish. It’s the TV ad spend in safe states. It’s the damned-with-faint-praise and passive-aggressive endorsements. It’s the passion reserved exclusively for “outrage” over Trump’s intentionally outrageous statements and utterly absent for anything Clinton says. It’s all designed to signal to your tribe that you’re a good person because you’re against Trump. It’s not completely uncorrelated with getting Clinton elected … it’s not counter-productive, per se … but it’s not very productive, either. Why not? Because this is a turn-out election. The winner of this election will be whoever can get more of their tribe to the polls in swing states: Colorado, North Carolina … maybe Nevada … maybe one or two others. Period. This is not an election that will be decided by influencing undecided or “lightly decided” voters one way or another, because all of these voters are staying home on November 8th anyway. It’s an election that will be decided by motivating your base. Can fear of Trump motivate? Sure it can. But if Brexit taught us anything, it’s the limitations of a fear-based campaign, at least when the fear-mongers are the same smarter-than-thou elites who tsk-tsk their deep and abiding concern for the benighted masses from Davos or Jackson Hole. Status quo candidates don’t win on fear alone. They’re not the anti-party. There has to be a reason … a why … an anthem for rallying the troops. And that’s what’s missing from the Clinton campaign, in exactly the same way it was missing for Teddy Kennedy in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Look, I get it. The Democratic candidate isn’t Clinton, it’s Clinton™. Having chosen (or more accurately, anointed) a profoundly hypocritical and opportunistic pragmatic candidate, Democratic mouthpieces are now in the uncomfortable position of manufacturing enthusiasm rather than channeling enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is something you can easily fake when you’re winning big. But when the game gets tight … when it looks like (gulp!) the game might go the other way … well, that’s when thoughts of self-preservation and virtue signaling start to creep into the most adamant Democratic partisan. In fact, particularly the most adamant Democratic partisans. They WANT to believe. But Clinton™ is just so hard to sell out FOR.

The concepts of cooperation and defection are at the core of game theory. Whether it’s a game of Chicken or Prisoner’s Dilemma or (below) Stag Hunt, the standard depiction of strategic decision-making is always a choice between cooperation and defection.
Image

But it’s so important, I think, to recognize that defection isn’t always (in fact, usually isn’t) some grand gesture of rejection. Defection is a state of mind. Sure, when Never Trump Republicans come out and jump ship over to the Clinton camp, that’s an obvious defection. But it’s also a defection when Clinton advocates use all of their precious media time to rail and rail about how Trump is a more prolific liar than Clinton, because the subtext here is “my candidate is a liar, too”, and there’s nothing motivating about that. [img]Here’s%20the%20big%20kicker:%20the%20virtue%20signaling%20“soft%20defector”%20is%20more%20damaging%20to%20the%20Clinton%20campaign%20than%20the%20turncoat%20“hard%20defector”%20is%20to%20the%20Trump%20campaign.%20Why?%20Because%20virtue%20signalers%20are%20rewarded%20by%20their%20own%20tribe,%20while%20turncoats%20are%20blasted.%20Virtue%20signaling%20is%20infectious.%20It%20spreads%20like%20the%20common%20cold.%20And%20because%20the%20psychic%20rewards%20from%20virtue%20signaling%20are%20so%20immediate%20and%20so%20powerful,%20it’s%20really,%20really%20hard%20to%20shake%20this%20disease%20from%20an%20organization.%20It’s%20impossible%20to%20overemphasize%20the%20importance%20of%20psychic%20rewards%20in%20the%20decision-making%20of%20staffers%20and%20candidates%20alike.[/img]

Ditto for psychic punishment. It’s impossible to overstate the human animal’s ability to rationalize an abdication of principle when his tribe showers him with disdain. It’s impossible to overestimate a political animal’s love of winning over anything else, including integrity. I mean, it’s amazing how Ted Cruz was delighted to be the standard bearer of the in-party opposition so long as it looked like Trump was going to be trounced. But then the polls turned up for Trump, and Cruz falls all over himself doing his best Chris Christie imitation. Just goes to show, there’s no mockery like self-mockery.

Two final points. First, everything I’ve written about the soft defection that’s endemic within the Clinton campaign can be written about the Yellen Fed, too. God knows I’ve been railing about the Fed a lot in recent notes, though, so I’ll save that for another day.

Second, there’s always the risk that a note like this will be misinterpreted, that in critiquing the Clinton campaign I’ll be perceived as supporting Trump. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m thoroughly despondent about the calcification, mendacity, and venal corruption that I think four years of Clinton™ will impose. I think as a candidate she’s a bizarre combination of Michael Dukakis and Teddy Kennedy, and I think as a president she’ll be an equally bizarre combination of Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding, both of whom presided over a fin de siècle global economic collapse. Gag. But I don’t think she can break us, not as a society, anyway.

Image

Trump, on the other hand … I think he breaks us. Maybe he already has. He breaks us because he transforms every game we play as a country — from our domestic social games to our international security games — from a Coordination Game to a Competition Game.

The hallmark of a Coordination Game is that there are two equilibrium outcomes possible, two balancing points where the game is stable. Yes, one of those stable outcomes is mutual defection, where everyone pursues their individual goals and everyone is worse off. But a stable outcome of mutual cooperation is at least possible in a Coordination Game, and that’s worth a lot. Here’s a graphical representation of a Coordination Game, using Rousseau’s famous example of “the stag hunt”.

Fig. 1 Coordination Game (Stag Hunt)

Image

The basic idea here is that each player can choose to either cooperate (hunt together for a stag, in Rousseau’s example) or defect (hunt independently for a rabbit, in Rousseau’s example), but neither player knows what the other player is going to choose. If you defect, you’re guaranteed to bag a rabbit (so, for example, if the Row Player chooses Defect, he gets 1 point regardless of Column Player’s choice), but if you cooperate, you get a big deer if the other player also cooperates (worth 2 points to both players) and nothing if the other player defects. There are two Nash equilibria for the Coordination Game, marked by the blue ovals in the figure above. A Nash equilibrium is a stable equilibrium because once both players get to that outcome, neither player has any incentive to change his strategy. If both players are defecting, both will get rabbits (bottom right quadrant), and neither player will change to a Cooperate strategy. But if both players are cooperating, both will share a stag (top left quadrant), and neither player will change to a Defect strategy, as you’d be worse off by only getting a rabbit instead of sharing a stag (the other player would be even more worse off if you switched to Defect, but you don’t care about that).

The point of the Coordination Game is that mutual cooperation is a stable outcome based solely on self-interest, so long as the payoffs from defecting are always less than the payoff of mutual cooperation. If that happens, however, you get a game like this:

Fig. 2 Competition Game (Prisoner’s Dilemma)

Image


Here, the payoff from defecting while everyone else continues to cooperate is no longer a mere 1 point rabbit, but is a truly extraordinary payoff where you get the “free rider” benefits of everyone else’s deer hunting AND you go out to get a rabbit on your own. This extraordinary payoff is what Trump is saying is possible when he talks about America “winning” again. But it’s not possible. Not for more than a nanosecond, at least, because there’s no equilibrium there, no stability in either the upper right or bottom left quadrant. You want to pass a modern version of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to “win” a trade deal? Knock yourself out. As in 1930, you’ll enjoy those benefits for about two months before every other country does the same thing against you. And in about 12 months, as in 1931, every bank that’s levered to global trade finance goes bust. Whee! There’s one and only one equilibrium in a competition game — the “everyone defect” outcome of the bottom right quadrant — meaning that once you get to this point (and you will) you can’t get out. The stability of the Competition Game is the stability of permanent conflict.

I’m no Pollyanna about the world. Not only do I think that the world is, in fact, described best as a Clash of Civilizations, but I also think that many of the cooperative international games we play as a country are inevitably heading toward a competitive dynamic, and this is at the heart of what I’ve described as the transformation of the Golden Age of the Central Banker to the Silver Age of the Central Banker. I get that. But it is insane to throw away the stable cooperative equilibrium we have with Japan and Europe and China in the international security game or the international trade game. Insane. If I’m China and Trump is elected, I don’t wait for him to fire the first shots in a trade war. I fire first, by floating my currency. That’s the Golden Rule of any competitive game: do unto others as they would do unto you … but do it first.

More importantly than what happens in any of these international games, however, is what happens in our domestic games. Blowing up our international trade and security games with Europe, Japan, and China for the sheer hell of it, turning them into full-blown Competition Games … that’s really stupid. But we have a nasty recession and maybe a nasty war. Maybe it would have happened anyway. We get over it. Blowing up our American political game with citizens, institutions, and identities for the sheer hell of it, turning it into a full-blown Competition Game … that’s a historic tragedy. We don’t get over that.

But that’s exactly what’s happening. I look at Charlotte. I look at Dallas. I look at Milwaukee. And I no longer recognize us.

I don’t think people realize the underlying fragility of the Constitution — the written rules to our American political game. It’s just a piece of paper. Its only strength in theory is our communal determination to infuse it with meaning through our embrace of not only its explicit rules, but also and more crucially its unwritten rules of small-l liberal values like tolerance, liberty, and equality under the law. Its only strength in practice is that whoever runs our Executive branch, whoever is our Commander-in-Chief, whoever is in charge of “law and order”, whoever runs our massive spy bureaucracy national intelligence service, whoever controls the legitimate use of deadly force and incarceration … that he or she believes in those unwritten rules of small-l liberal values like tolerance, liberty, and equality under the law. When you hear Trump talk about “loosening the law” on torture, or “loosening the law” on libel prosecutions of anyone who criticizes HIM, or the impossibility of a federal judge being able to rule fairly because his parents were born in Mexico … well, there’s no way he believes in those small-l liberal virtues. No way.

And yeah, I know what the supporters say, that he “really doesn’t mean what he says”, or that “once he’s elected he’ll listen to the right people and his views will evolve”, or — my personal fave — “it’s only 4 years, how bad can it be?” Answer: pretty damn bad. And yeah, I understand the argument on the Supreme Court. But what I’m talking about is bigger than the Supreme Court. A lot bigger.

I’m going to close this note with two pages from Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (in Cartoons), originally published in Look magazine in 1945. If you’ve never read The Road to Serfdom … that’s okay, most people haven’t. But do yourself a favor and at least read the Classics Comic Book version I’m copying from here. I’m not saying that Hayek was some Nostradamus and I’m not saying that history is repeating itself. But I am saying that Hayek was a really smart guy who believed with all his heart in small-l liberal virtues and keenly observed the politics of the world the last time we got into such a global mess. I am saying that history rhymes.

Image

Image

Over the next nine months we’re going to have national elections in three of the largest, most powerful countries in the world: the U.S., Germany, and France. We’ll have the equivalent of a national election in Italy, as well. Hayek believed that the inevitable result of those elections is Cartoon #10 — the coming to power of the strong man.

salient-epsilon-theory-ben-hunt-virtue-signaling-september-30-2016-happy-faceYeah, Ben, or the strong woman. You’re railing about Trump and his anti-liberal pseudo-fascist tendencies, but you’re giving Clinton a pass? Seriously? Doesn’t Hayek’s work apply to smiley-face authoritarians as well as Brown Shirts? Aren’t you just virtue signaling?

Heard.

But here’s the biggest difference. I know how to resist Clinton. It won’t be a fun four years, but — thank you, gridlock! — I don’t think she can mess things up so horribly that we can’t undo it, or at least prepare for the political battles to come. I don’t know how to resist Trump, and neither does anyone else, because we haven’t experienced this reactionary populist strain in American politics since … I dunno … the Know Nothing Party of the 1850s?

So what’s to be done? In investing, I’m just looking to survive the next four years, regardless of who’s in office. I’ve written a lot on what that means, most recently in “Cat’s Cradle”. In politics, I’m selling out for the Scottish Enlightenment and the small-l liberal values of tolerance, liberty, and equality under law. I’ve got some ideas on how to bring those political values into a world of Google, spy satellites, and PlayStation 4, so that’s what I’m going to write about. If there’s no home for these political values in the Republican or Democratic parties — and who in their right mind thinks there is — then I’ll find another home, another political party. I don’t think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party will be recognizable in four years, anyway — both of these bands are now structurally unstable, I just don’t know if the break-up is going to be like the Beatles or like Oasis — so I’ll be working with a new political landscape. But it’s time for a third party based on IDEAS, not on a billionaire’s personality. Imagine that.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1415
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby sooraj » 01 Oct 2016 23:20

Trump ready to drag Bill Clinton sex scandals into US campaign :P

Donald Trump indicated in a new interview that he's ready to drag ex-president Bill Clinton's sex scandals into the White House campaign, after Democrats lashed out at the billionaire's Twitter rant against a pro-Hillary ex-Miss Universe.

Trump told The New York Times that he believes talking about the sex scandals that stained the career of Hillary's husband Bill would turn female voters away from her.

"She's nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be," Trump told the Times in an interview posted late yesterday.

He added: "Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics," referring to Bill Clinton (president 1993-2001).

"Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it's a serious problem for them, and it's something that I'm considering talking about more in the near future," he told the newspaper.

In an apparent effort to pre-empt the attacks, the Clinton campaign released audio of Bill Clinton talking about his marriage with Hillary.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 02 Oct 2016 20:11

i don't think theres anything more to milk out of clinton's scandals of past. diminishing returns and all that..might actually backfire

otoh, trump has stuff overflowing in his cupboard that threatens to spill over

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/po ... taxes.html
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Oct 2016 22:37

https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis ... -jihadism#

From time to time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country’s most senior military officer below the commander-in-chief himself, puts out a National Military Strategy. This document is intended for senior American military commanders around the world and sets out big picture strategy guidance for how the U.S. military ought to cope with the myriad threats it may face in the line of duty.

New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine General Joseph Dunford is compiling a new National Military Strategy. Special Operations Command (SoCom), the branch of the military charged with hunting down and killing terrorists, is providing input and expertise to the report.

SoCom is pushing for Salafi jihadism to be discussed in the report as the branch of Sunni Islam responsible for most global terrorism in the world today. It is the ideology shared by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

“If you look at threat doctrine from that perspective, it’s a much bigger problem because it’s not just the violent jihadists, it’s the non-violent jihadists who support them,” one person knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy told The Washington Times. “Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win. We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”

Dunford’s staff declined to comment on the upcoming report, which will be classified. The last National Military Strategy, by the previous chairman, General Martin Dempsey, was released publicly on the Joint Chiefs of Staff website. It did not make mention the ideological roots of terrorism.

Sources close to the team responsible for preparing the National Military Strategy told The Washington Times Dunford’s staff was not persuaded on the merits of including the term.

Quintan Wictorowicz, one of the architects of Obama’s national counter extremism policy, charted the relationships between Salafi jihadist groups (although he did not use that term) and other sects of Islam in a 2005 academic paper entitled A Genealogy of Radical Islam.

“Al Qaeda and the radical fundamentalists that constitute the new ‘global jihadi movement’ are not theological outliers. They are part of a broader community of Islamists known as ‘Salafis’ (commonly called ‘Wahhabis’).”

He distinguished between violent and non-violent Salafis saying “The jihadi faction believes that violence can be used to establish Islamic states and confront the United States and its allies. Non-violent Salafis, on the other hand, emphatically reject the use of violence and instead emphasize propagation and advice (usually private) to incumbent rulers in the Muslim world.”

Wictorowicz details several important theological points that distinguish this movement, notably the use of takfir to brand the enemies of the jihadi movement as apostates deserving of death and the concept of jahilliya which posits that the contemporary Muslim world is not really Muslim because they follow man-made laws and are therefore akin to the pagans who ruled Arabia before the time of Mohammed.

He names Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb as a central figure in the development of this doctrine.

Understanding this application of radical theology to the political sphere helps us to identify why certain groups are dedicated to fighting the United States and helps in setting out clearly the differences between Salafi jihadism and Sunni Islam in general.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Oct 2016 22:40

Quintan Wictorowicz, one of the architects of Obama’s national counter extremism policy, charted the relationships between Salafi jihadist groups (although he did not use that term) and other sects of Islam in a 2005 academic paper entitled A Genealogy of Radical Islam.


Paper available here (PDF): http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings%202015/Se ... rorism.pdf

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2016 23:35

Surprised that this has not hit the BR fan .......

George W. Bush's daughter attends Clinton fundraiser in Paris

Especially with a picture like .....

Image

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Oct 2016 13:09

I normally google news DT name and find that news items are quite bad on him. He is now even acted in *****. Don't they at least reasonable in their reporting. Google seems to be onesided in its news filtering. It is quite shocking that not even a single news report is positive on DT for weeks.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Oct 2016 17:47


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 03 Oct 2016 22:45

WAPost reporting the NY State AG has told Trump's Foundation not to raise any more funds.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54390
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2016 22:55

Another aspect of virtue signaling is all sorts of surrogates are campaigning for Clinton but herself.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2016 01:34

True humour.

Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist; only his form of terror doesn’t boil down to blowing things up. He’s the 70-year-old toddler who knows nearly nothing, hurls insults, has simplistic solutions for complex problems and is quick to throw a tantrum. Also, in case you didn’t know it, this toddler is mean to girls and is a bit of a bigot.

It isn’t so much that he is a strict disciple of radical ideology, but rather that he is devoid of fixed principles, willing to do anything and everything to gain fame, fortune and power. He has an endless, consuming need for perpetual affirmation. This is a bully who just wants to be liked, a man-boy nursing a nagging internal emptiness.

He’s fickle and spoiled and rotten.

So, when he loses at something, anything, he lashes out. When someone chastises him for bad behavior, he chafes. This is the kind of silver-spoon scion quick to yell at those he views as less privileged, and therefore less-than, “Do you know who I am?”

We do now, sir.



More at http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/op ... ddler.html

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby panduranghari » 04 Oct 2016 13:40

ramana wrote:Another aspect of virtue signaling is all sorts of surrogates are campaigning for Clinton but herself.


+100

Will Trump go against them, if he wins.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2016 11:15

Western/US democracy of the day.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nts-policy
Lies, fearmongering and fables: that’s our democracy
George Monbiot

People power can challenge the status quo, but only if we understand our political system has inherent flaws
Clay miniatures of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at a factory in Torroella de Montgri, Spain.

Tuesday 4 October 2016
What if democracy doesn’t work? What if it never has and never will? What if government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fairytale? What if it functions as a justifying myth for liars and charlatans?

There are plenty of reasons to raise these questions. The lies, exaggerations and fearmongering on both sides of the Brexit non-debate; the xenophobic fables that informed the Hungarian referendum; Donald Trump’s ability to shake off almost any scandal and exposure; the election of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who gleefully compares himself to Hitler: are these isolated instances or do they reveal a systemic problem?

Democracy for Realists, published earlier this year by the social science professors Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, argues that the “folk theory of democracy” – the idea that citizens make coherent and intelligible policy decisions, on which governments then act – bears no relationship to how it really works. Or could ever work.

Voters, they contend, can’t possibly live up to these expectations. Most are too busy with jobs and families and troubles of their own. When we do have time off, not many of us choose to spend it sifting competing claims about the fiscal implications of quantitative easing. Even when we do, we don’t behave as the theory suggests.

2.8 million voters punished Al Gore for the floods and droughts of 2000 – ironic, given his position on climate change
Our folk theory of democracy is grounded in an Enlightenment notion of rational choice. This proposes that we make political decisions by seeking information, weighing the evidence and using it to choose good policies, then attempting to elect a government that will champion those policies. In doing so, we compete with other rational voters, and seek to reach the unpersuaded through reasoned debate.

In reality, the research summarised by Achen and Bartels suggests, most people possess almost no useful information about policies and their implications, have little desire to improve their state of knowledge, and have a deep aversion to political disagreement. We base our political decisions on who we are rather than what we think. In other words, we act politically – not as individual, rational beings but as members of social groups, expressing a social identity. We seek out the political parties that seem to correspond best to our culture, with little regard to whether their policies support our interests. We remain loyal to political parties long after they have ceased to serve us.

Of course, shifts do happen, sometimes as a result of extreme circumstances, sometimes because another party positions itself as a better guardian of a particular cultural identity. But they seldom involve a rational assessment of policy.

The idea that parties are guided by policy decisions made by voters also seems to be a myth; in reality, the parties make the policies and we fall into line. To minimise cognitive dissonance – the gulf between what we perceive and what we believe – we either adjust our views to those of our favoured party or avoid discovering what the party really stands for. This is how people end up voting against their interests.

We are suckers for language. When surveys asked Americans whether the federal government was spending too little on “assistance to the poor”, 65% agreed. But only 25% agreed that it was spending too little on “welfare”. In the approach to the 1991 Gulf war, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they were willing to “use military force”; less than 30% were willing to “go to war”.

Even the less ambitious notion of democracy – that it’s a means by which people punish or reward governments – turns out to be divorced from reality. We remember only the past few months of a government’s performance (a bias known as “duration neglect”) and are hopeless at correctly attributing blame. A great white shark that killed five people in July 1916 caused a 10% swing against Woodrow Wilson in the beach communities of New Jersey.In 2000, according to analysis by the authors 2.8 million voters punished the Democrats for the floods and droughts that struck that year. Al Gore, they say, lost Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Missouri as a result – which is ironic given his position on climate change.

The obvious answer is better information and civic education. But this doesn’t work either. Moderately informed Republicans were more inclined than Republicans with the least information to believe that Bill Clinton oversaw an increase in the budget deficit (it declined massively). Why? Because, unlike the worst informed, they knew he was a Democrat. The tiny number of people with a very high level of political information tend to use it not to challenge their own opinions but to rationalise them. Political knowledge, Achen and Bartels argue, “enhances bias”.

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems
Read more
Direct democracy – referendums and citizens’ initiatives – seems to produce even worse results. In the US initiatives are repeatedly used by multimillion-dollar lobby groups to achieve results that state legislatures won’t grant them. They tend to replace taxes with user fees, stymie the redistribution of wealth and degrade public services. Whether representative or direct, democracy comes to be owned by the elites.

This is not to suggest that it has no virtues; just that those it does have are not those we principally ascribe to it. It allows governments to be changed without bloodshed, limits terms in office, and ensures that the results of elections are widely accepted. Sometimes public attribution of blame will coincide with reality, which is why you don’t get famines in democracies.

In these respects it beats dictatorship. But is this all it has to offer? A weakness of Democracy for Realists is that most of its examples are drawn from the US, and most of those are old. Had the authors examined popular education groups in Latin America, participatory budgets in Brazil and New York, the fragmentation of traditional parties in Europe and the movement that culminated in Bernie Sanders’ near miss, they might have discerned more room for hope. This is not to suggest that the folk theory of democracy comes close to reality anywhere, but that the situation is not as hopeless as they propose.

Persistent, determined, well-organised groups can bring neglected issues to the fore and change political outcomes. But in doing so they cannot rely on what democracy ought to be. We must see it for what it is. And that means understanding what we are.

• Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot. A fully linked version of this column will be published at monbiot.com

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 06 Oct 2016 02:58

Trump Tax Attorney: 'He Didn't Understand the Code'

Some humor.

An attorney who oversaw Donald Trump's income tax returns in the mid-1990s said the Republican presidential candidate had little interest in the tax code — contrasting with the billionaire's claim that he understood taxes "better than anyone" who had run for the White House.

"As far as I know, and that only goes through late '96, he didn't understand the code," said Jack Mitnick, a former tax adviser for Trump, in an interview with NBC's TODAY. "Nor would he have had the time and the patience to learn the provisions. That's a lifetime of experience."

Mitnick oversaw Trump's income tax returns in 1995, portions of which were published Saturday by the New York Times. The documents showed a reported loss of nearly $916 million — a deduction tax experts hired by the newspaper said was so large that Trump might have legally avoided paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.


This election cycle needs to go into some comic strip.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Philip » 06 Oct 2016 12:28

Understanding the US understanding the UK! Enjoy Chuck Yeager's ranting at the British. :rotfl:
Ck his tweets in the link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... ace-chuck/

British people are 'nasty' and ‘arrogant’ says WWII flying ace Chuck Yeager
Chuck Yeager

5 OCTOBER 2016 • 11:52PM
Chuck Yeager, former US test pilot, war hero and the first man to break the sound barrier, celebrated his 93rd birthday earlier this year.

But judging from his Twitter account, he has no intention of letting age mellow him.

General Yeager, lionised in Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff, has recently taken to social media like a (extraordinarily angry) duck to water.
Over the last few weeks, he’s been responding to all manner of questions posed to him on Twitter – and giving some extremely forthright answers.

When one follower noticed he seemed to have a negative attitude towards the British, and asked him why that was the case, General Yeager replied: “Arrogant. Nasty to Americans when we were over there saving them. Nasty when I visited a few years ago - wanted a whole lot for nothing.”

His comments prompted a huge response from his many British admirers, many of them outraged – but General Yeager was in no mood to back down:
Follow
Chuck Yeager ✔ @GenChuckYeager
Afghanistan and middle east a mess because of British cutting it up so badly https://twitter.com/Glen1540Glen/status ... 0412944384
3:23 AM - 6 Oct 2016

In the Second World War, General Yeager shot down five fighters in one day. Later, flying the Bell X-1 aircraft, he became the first pilot to travel faster than sound, despite having broken his ribs in a riding accident the day before. He has made millions of dollars from public speaking and his autobiography.

In 2012 General Yeager, then aged 89, recreated his record breaking feat, flying in an F-15 Eagle as it broke the sound barrier at more than 30,000 feet above California's Mohave Desert, the same place he first broke the sound barrier in 1947.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2016 15:54

Gus wrote:
NRao wrote:Interesting ..............

Ohio, Long a Bellwether, Is Fading on the Electoral Map


look at the path to victory and current margins from nate silver. this is his "polls plus" which adds his assumptions to the model from "polls only" -

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... promo#plus

even with ohio, trump still needs to flip at least 3 blue leaning states as of now - FL, NV and CO with increasing trails behind clinton. FL and NV looks doable, but CO seems like too big a gap.


The real test is in PA since the margin has been quite strong in favor of HRC for quite a while now. It was supposed to be a rust belt swing state but has been solid Blue for months now. If 30 days out, you can flip months worth of adverse polling you can do the same elsewhere. He needs to flip it or the path to 270 becomes possibly the hardest anyone has ever taken to becoming POTUS. Without PA, he needs to win FL, OH, IA, NH, NV and CO. He'll probably do well in OH but matters much more to the GOP and this year particularly to him since he has a much narrower overall path.

BK can just concede OH and build a firewall around NH, PA and CO and fight hard in FL. Some of the more recent polls have OH and FL much more competitive and the latest one has HRC leading in OH. Given finite resources this may work against the Trump campaign if they have to shift time and money to fight harder.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5964.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5974.html

This is a strange election with two candidates that 'could' only win against each other..so its a matter of attrition in the end given that a lot of voters will probably be voting with a ' least unfavorable' mentality. Can't wait for it to be over!

This* is if HRC flips just one swing state (NC) while Donald Trump takes OH, FL, NV, AZ and CO -

Image

Current avg. of polls has DT trailing in CO, and NV with FL being too close to call..While FL and OH are likely to get a lot of media attention given past nostalgia CO, and NC are likely much more critical states along with NV and possibly NH.

* Not treating VA as a swing state given consistent polling data...GA is likely to be more competitive than VA.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Oct 2016 19:38, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2016 18:41

Trump polls miserably among Asian Americans

More survey data here

Members of all national origin groups are more likely to vote for Clinton than Trump, but the level of support varies from more than 65% of Asian Indian registered voters to about 40% of Vietnamese registered voters.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 06 Oct 2016 19:09

barring some "october surprise"..this thing is in the bag for hrc. trump is doing worse than romney in almost every group except white non-college group. there is no more increase in that group that can offset trumps lag in other groups. its as simple as that.

combine that with even poor ground organization than romney, how the heck is trump going to bring more voters to the booth. hrc inherited the ground organization of obama which was instrumental..i would even say decisive in turning out more voters. in fact, that was why romney thought he will win because his polls showed he has more "likely voters". the obama folks just pushed more 'less likely voters' into the voting booth on election day.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2016 19:17

The 'October-Surprise' talk is also just that. Voters have baked in unprecedented levels of negatives on both these candidates so any hype/surprise or whatever is unlikely to move the needle all that much and convince them to not only NOT vote for one candidate, but vote for the other. This is a war of attrition so I doubt anyone repulsed by either candidate is all of a sudden going to vote for him/her just because of any surprise. the election will be close in many swing states, and that is a reflection of how divided the politics is at the moment so I don't buy the landslide argument that some in the media are spinning either. HRC will have to do remarkably well in the final stretch to repeat Obama's 2012 EV count..Either that or DT continues on the path he's on for the last couple of weeks. Given the polling data, almost all of them have to be off by a fairly large margin for a DT victory..Either that or the turnout needs to work in his favor. Either way, there is a very good reason that PEC has HRC @ 320EV to DT's 218.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby GShankar » 06 Oct 2016 19:32

A few surprises can indeed happen - more revelations by FBI or wiki leaks or IRS could still significantly change fortunes. Arguably, O-bomber got a good amount of gain nationwide (or atleast in significant states) for sandy relief in early november. There is still time for the non faithfools to change camp.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2016 19:48

That remains to be seen and is of course a possibility. What I'm going by is the margin of lead as per the poll averages in states like VA, CO, WI, ME and MI. It would have to be quite a swing in the opposite direction towards a candidate who at his best has much worst unfavorables. IMHO you need to improve your favorability "big-league" to get those swings and if the last week or two are any indication he isnt really interesting in improving them with certain key demographics (Women, hispanics, Asians, AA's and college educated White voters).

Image

On top of all that you have this a sharp contrast from what happened in the last congressional elections.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Oct 2016 21:29, edited 1 time in total.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 06 Oct 2016 20:57

trump blew it. after the convention he should have buckled down and focused on only one message. do you want change or not? he did not have to even prove he is better...he just had to keep quiet and not expose that he is worse. no need to keep pandering to the white non-college votes..that's already in the bag for him..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 06 Oct 2016 21:26

The current and the last campaign manager did try to make the message all about change and stoke the populist sentiment which resonates quite strongly with certain sections of the electorate. He himself has of course on plenty of occasions hurt the cause and has continued on the path that he and Lewandowski put him on - Making HIM the message. It was and still continues to be largely about TRUMP.

His wealth, his negotiated hotel deals, his judgement, his temperament (which he says is his strongest asset), his kowledge about ISIS, him being the most militaristic person ever (actual quote btw) ever etc etc. When it hasn't been about that, it's been about poll numbers or attacking other. Instead of picking a strategy to improve standings in polls he goes after them or complains that its all rigged against him. There has been no focus on a unified message or message discipline in a way that Sander's was for example...With bernie, one could tell that every conversation with him either at an interview, town hall or during a speech would end with a populist economic message...You could have asked him a question about inter-planetary travel and he would have somehow gotten in a line or two about the top 1% :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 07 Oct 2016 04:35

Just struck me, that Mr. Teleprompter would be a watered down version of Mr. Duterte. The teleprompter would, hopefully, help him use better language and control his thoughts.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 07 Oct 2016 06:43


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2016 15:18

The reason why "say whatever you want" and then "walk it back" doesn't really work is that people tend to switch out and walk back's are boring and do not get as much media coverage. Plus there is the entire half a billion $ + DNC machine that will make sure the words are played over and over again. Its just not this, its also a lot of other stuff that he has said that his surrogates, running mate and family members have tried to walk back. The Atlantic's Selina Zeto put it quite eloquently in the media taking DT literally but not seriously while his die hard supporters take him seriously but not literally.

BK has made it their mission over this cycle to make sure that folks take him literally and he has constantly provided fodder to them, media cycle after media cycle starting with the pre-nomination statements to everything that has followed since. For Mook and Co. Christmas came early since majority of their message has been about their rival who is possibly the only credible political nominee that could have managed higher unfavorables than their own candidate.

Stuff like this does HURT since the General Election is not about generating more passion among the $13 or so Million that voted for you in the primary, but winning over the 15-16 Million GOP voters that DID NOT vote for you (a record number) in the primary, or the nearly 130 Million folks that are likely to vote int he general election, most of whom did not participate in the primary process. Even though he is an imperfect candidate to drive the populist message, the support for such a message is imho grossly overestimated. 2+ Million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in the Primaries, and even if one were to consider Bernie Sanders as an outsider candidate (don't know how since I don't think he's been anything other than a politician his entire life) we still have a majority of primary voters in both parties vote for established, career politicians (besides those that were scammed by the Carson mail fraud ;) )..And this is your most politically charged electorate (20-25 or so % of your overall likely voter turnout).

Anyways, by far the funniest image of this entire election cycle has to be -

Image

This almost begs for SNL coverage ;)

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 07 Oct 2016 20:54

the art and science of politics is to put together coalitions....you can only do that by making more people believe you are with them.

the moment you pander to one group too much, it is always going to be hard to get other groups on your side.

the republican problem is, nobody can win the base without pandering to them or somebody else will upend them from their right. and that means, they cannot get enough general election votes.

i said in last election itself, there will be no more republican president given their politics and the demographics.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 07 Oct 2016 23:40

Max Boot sums up one main issue with their electorate and their center of power - The mouthpieces have become the intellectual driving force and the intellectuals are leaving. Who would have thought that in 2016, George Will would no longer be a Republican or HW Bush would vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opini ... .html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3175a9af07

Regardless of who wins, the GOP would have wasted a tremendous amount of money and human resources on outreach to communities that it had identified as its weak spot 4 years ago - Communities that its own post-mortem post 2012 schalacking uncovered. It would be interesting indeed to see how many tens of millions they would have spent over the last 4 years on Hispanic and african-american outreach and how much below Romney levels Trump really takes them!. Add to that the sizable chunk of the Republican and republican leaning NatSec community that has either left or are sitting out.

Who knows how many Trum'esque candidates show up 2 years from now, or even 4 years from now...
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Oct 2016 00:59, edited 4 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2016 00:12

I am not sure Trump has harmed the GOP vision. I think Trump (and Hillary) have done the American people a big favor by showing what happens when people do not participate in the political process. And that will, IMHO, right the ship.

I think Hillary wins and has to incorporate Bernie and some of Trump. Just do not see her doing her own dog and pony show. I think she has been politically hurt and That has weakened her and it will show.

I expect a more assertive US on the foreign front, but will be forced to engage others a lot more.

On the home front: jobs and a robust economy is a must.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2016 00:20

I think Hillary wins and has to incorporate Bernie and some of Trump. Just do not see her doing her own dog and pony show. I think she has been politically hurt and That has weakened her and it will show.


There is very little she or anyone else can differ from Obama's posture w/o working with the Congress. The policy gridlock cannot be solved by POTUS and this applies to a host of issues, from the Economic Policy to the Military. If she confronts the Congress she is unlikely to acheive any more than what Obama was able to do. If the Senate holds it may just make her more moderate on a host of issues. I expect her to (I'm not her supporter and I don't intend on voting for her unless this gets very very very close in my state ) be better at working with the Congress just given the type of folks she has lined up at least in the NatSec roles.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby Gus » 08 Oct 2016 01:04

well republicans will still retain congress thanks to gerrymandering.

nothing is going to happen until that changes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2016 01:08

I didn't mean they'll loose the house, but more to the fact that these broader policy matters have to be addressed by the Congress and not unilaterally by the POTUS. Having a republican majority in the Congress and even a very slight majority in the senate may just force a good hard look at these things from a potential HRC presidency..If the Dems take the Senate I expect even more gridlock as the House GOP members are likely to even become more aggressive in resisting compromise.

Its just not the GOP factions that are holding bipartisan progress. Dems have factions as well and those are equally to blame.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Oct 2016 02:40, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2016 01:30

When HH Hillary first thought of all, she expected to be riding a dazzling white horse, to conquer - well - some of the world.

Now she has been given a mule and told to clean up the yard.




I think the next "debate" will provide an insight into what people expect. Point being she had hoped to set the agenda and the people to follow. A'int happening.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2016 03:03

Hmmm............. Hot mics. Colder than some other things.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2016 03:17

What's even more embarrassing is that his running mate was as recently as a couple of hours ago praising Trump of "telling it like it is". :) Keep in mind that the comment was made to Jeb and George W Bush's cousin :oops: :roll:

Edit: They finally have the transcripts from Ted Cruz's phone calls to rally support for DT
:rotfl:
Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2016 09:22

The other shoe?

WikiLeaks posts apparent excerpts of Clinton Wall Street speeches

This is getting to be exciting, just when I was about to go to sleep.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Manish_Sharma, Rupesh and 21 guests