Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
For the same reason RFK was a senator for NY. Because the Democrats cut a deal with a powerful political family. It was the moment I realized we live in an oligarchy, not a democratic republic.
OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
For the same reason RFK was a senator for NY. Because the Democrats cut a deal with a powerful political family. It was the moment I realized we live in an oligarchy, not a democratic republic.
Makes the most sense of any explanation I can think of.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
What I will say is that Patrick Moynihan, who she replaced, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who has succeeded her, were/have been significantly better for New York, especially Upstate New York, than Clinton could have dreamed. She is a black hole in advocacy for New York State.
mongooz
.
that you know of......Vince Foster may not have been the first "foreign" entity.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Trump guy is getting a little too fired up in Arizona. NSFW
mongooz
.
unfortunately 80% of americans are stupid fucking idiots that follow what their party (union) tells them....regardless of how much it violates the bill of rights.
stupid is as stupid does.
335clone
Living the dream
My memories of that were that I would think about it (late 70's and onward) think about all the military bases including nuclear sub bases in my general area, then conclude that I could do nothing about it, and that if it happened, at least it would be over quickly where I lived. And then, since I was in college and in a fraternity, would pretty much drink beer.
When I started at Lockheed in '84, there was a helipad marked out in the parking lot of my building directly between Onizuka AFS (the Blue Cube) and NAS Moffett Field, with a big white X. We used to joke that when the shit hit the fan we were at literal ground zero and wouldn't ever know what hit us. idn_smilie
Chad
Slender Hobbit
Post of the day. Go ahead and turn the Internet off until tomorrow.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
Don't forget the church. I worked with a woman during the Bush-Kerry election. I asked her why she supported W and she said her pastor told her to vote for him. I asked her what she thought on every major issue and she sided with Kerry on 95% of them but still voted for Bush.
Gammy
HCGJ Refugee
I don't see how this happens without literal riots. I get the logic is that they'd rather lose for sure with like 45% of the vote with Ted Cruz (?) or whoever instead of whatever the hell is going to happen with Trump but how do you overrule a clear majority of voters?
Honestly I think a better bet would be Trump randomly announcing he's withdrawing a week from the election on some flimsy pretext to avoid being humiliated. He's got a fragile ego.
Granted I'm looking at this from an outside perspective but it seems to me that Paul Ryan has the economic views of a spotty teenager who thinks Ayn Rand is the world's greatest novelist yet has this reputation as some kind of serious, deep thinker on policy because the media thinks it's a good narrative.
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
The thing that's been hitting me since the news of alleged anti-Trump folks getting violent, is who are these people? Everyone that I know that has an once of sense wants nothing to do with Trump (voting for him, watching his shows, hearing about him about him anymore, supporting his businesses, etc.), but not a single one would get into a fight with his supporters about their disdain for who he is, what he says, what he respresents, what he's brought out in his supporters, etc.
I feel like these folks are just part of the Trump perpetually attention lusting media machine. Either they are pushed to extremes and we're not hearing about it (so their violence is in defense or striking back) or they're there on Trump's dime in a horribly misguided effort to make democrats/liberals/rationals seem like the problem. You can agree or disagree with the democrats/liberals all you want, but you have to recognize that they are not a group prone to violent lashing out. Hell, they couldn't even be bothered to get out and vote enough to avoid having two terms of W! They are like the anti-NRA, they talk about the change they want, but rarely put forth the effort to make it happen or secure it.
On one hand I recognize how tin-foil-hatty this sounds, but on the other I wouldn't put it past Trump for a second.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
I'm fairly comfortable saying that the "bigger idiot" is the roided-out, white-power tatted guy yelling "Go make me a burrito, bitch". The folks rather calmly protesting behind the barriers don't seem like idiots to me at all.
Flamencology
You don't deserve koa.
In a famous essay published four decades ago, the Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter set out to explain a paradox: “situations where outcomes do not seem intuitively consistent with the underlying individual preferences.” What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.
Most previous explanations had focussed on explaining how someone’s beliefs might be altered in the moment. An early theory was that a crowd cast a kind of intoxicating spell over its participants. Then the argument shifted to the idea that rioters might be rational actors: maybe at the moment a riot was beginning people changed their beliefs. They saw what was at stake and recalculated their estimations of the costs and benefits of taking part.
But Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Beyer160
Vagabond Of The Western World
Good thing separation of church and state only works one way, huh? If churches are going to advocate for specific political parties and candidates, they need to pay fucking taxes.
There was a German political party of the 1920s that engaged in the tactics you're talking about- they caused rioting and unrest, and then positioned themselves as the law & order party that could do something about the riots and unrest. Their leader was a populist demagogue who played on peoples' fears of minorities and promised to make Germany great again. It worked fantastically well for them until the mid-'40s, then it all kind of fell apart.
mongooz
.
if there is a motion to open the rules committee at the beginning of the convention and the vote is in favor of opening, then the rules committee MAY change the rule (among others) about being bound to cast the delegate votes in accordance with the popular vote. that would free up the delegates to vote their conscience. if a delegate really believes in trump then they vote that way. but if delegates were going to have to hold their nose of vote in a way they really feel would be bad for the GOP/country, they could now vote for someone else.
it's a real possibility.
- Status