Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would expect large components of the Obama Coalition to stay home. To be specific, racial/ethnic minorities, and Millies. The former does not trust Hillary, the latter is not excited by her in the least and most I've run into are actually turned off by her. (She probably reminds them of a not very pleasant version of their own mothers.)



LOL. You are really out of touch Playdude. I've not read a newspaper (unless you count the free classified ads paper a "newspaper") in about five years, and I've not bought one in about 10. I get my news from a variety of sources in a variety of formats from articles to videos--all most all of this content provided without charge. So what is being sold exactly?



A week is a long time in politics, 11 months is nearly an eternity. I foresee that if Hillary is nominated she will be put under a microscope, her record examined to death, and the GOP Noise Machine that has 20+ years experience making her look undesirable will surpess the votes of those who would normally vote for a Democrat. This means the GOP need only excite its base to win.



Florida is a deeply purple state, I have heard Millies supporting Trump already down here. Millies that would normally vote for Democrats even. Sanders could beat Trump but Hillary can't. Given her weakness with the Democratic Coalition as it exists now, this means if she is run, and unless the GOP runs Rubio or Bush on the top of their ticket the White House is going to the GOP because FL's 29 electoral votes are important to both parties.

Considering you're a New Yorker you probably don't understand how hated Jeb and Marco are.



It is generally considered bad form for the current lame duck president to campaign for the candidate of his Party. That being said...



Hillary was historic in 2008 to being the first woman with an actual shot at being President. People didn't go for her then either. Hillary hasn't changed much in 8 years, neither has the country. People who want a Jeb Bush type would rather have Jeb Bush than Jeb Bush with a shrill voice and a vagina. The Truman Rule is still in effect.

Further, being a historic candidate doesn't really do much. Had John McCain not selected a crazy person for his VP candidate he very well could have been elected President in 2008. He would have been a one termer of course, but he would have been elected. People do not vote on the basis of a candidates race or their genitals. That you would assume that they would exposes your own sexism and racism. But then again, that's the contradiction inherent in identity politics.



We shall see. But mark my words. If Hillary runs, and she isn't going up against a ticket with Bush or Rubio on it she will loose. A GOP ticket absent of those too almost guarantees FL going red this time round.

There's nothing here but conjecture and anecdotes; your views are not supported within the 2008/2012 Coalition.

You're caught up in the Trump circus show brought to you by the 'entertaining news' (the Donald finally issued his first poli-ad saying he felt guilty not having to do so since he's been getting enormous free coverage by the entertaining news). It's pretty obvious this is a form of selection bias - you don't like Clinton and only hold that 'information' that supports her un-electability in your mind.

I went through this with another poster, JustPassingThrough ("the polls are skewed! the polls are skewed!), in 2012 and it was pretty amusing - at least up until a few days after that election; the stakes were high for him and I thought we might have to call a suicide watch. I don't think you have much actual interest in this election so I'm hoping my derived amusement will be fairly unlimited up to and hopefully at least a few weeks past November 8.

We're definitely marking your words.

Is that an endorsement?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not exactly. More like a dream. Like PBR has deduced (not that I ever really hid it) I believe that someone like Trump, Cruz or Rubio would make things so bad that a revolutionary moment would become inevitable. These last few years expectations have been rising, as such they would put the breaks on what little progress has been made and thus create--perhaps inadvertently a revolutionary situation.

Latest news on the revolutionary spiral of violence. Y'all Qaida has taken over a wildlife refuge. The government intends to respond... eventually. Well, they said they would. They're talking about it.

I can sympathize with a desire to see things get ugly enough that the People will demand transformation. I anticipate another attempt or three at due process before anything violent hits critical mass. We'll see.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Latest news on the revolutionary spiral of violence. Y'all Qaida has taken over a wildlife refuge. The government intends to respond... eventually. Well, they said they would. They're talking about it.

I can sympathize with a desire to see things get ugly enough that the People will demand transformation. I anticipate another attempt or three at due process before anything violent hits critical mass. We'll see.

Both Cruz and Rubio were swift to label it lawlessness.

The rising tide of the Regeneracy will be unstoppable once it gathers steam.

Extremists will be pariahs or even considered criminal elements.

I think it's true, and I have said before, that it won't take another Depression to stir the pot and bring regeneracy, civil war and/or revolution to the USA in this 4T, especially in the 2020s. Just the fear of things returning to the 2008 meltdown and 2009 depression could well blow things up. It may not take much to stoke the fear.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...rst_tv_ad.html

It's fascinating to listen to this brief conversation between Trump and John Dickerson about "Radical Islam." When you listen to Trump in this relatively less contentious venue - one-on-one with a good journalist - it is scary how reasonable Trump makes his xenophobic position sound.

I am increasingly concerned that with the support of many relatively un- or mis- informed rust-belt, late-middle-age Boomer dudes, this election could go badly and we could find ourselves in a pickle. He is skilled at redirecting all the overt and subliminal anger that's out there, and directing it at those different. AND using nationalism/patriotism at the same time for the "positive" side of his message. It may be that we do, indeed, live in interesting times.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Latest news on the revolutionary spiral of violence. Y'all Qaida has taken over a wildlife refuge. The government intends to respond... eventually. Well, they said they would. They're talking about it.

I can sympathize with a desire to see things get ugly enough that the People will demand transformation. I anticipate another attempt or three at due process before anything violent hits critical mass. We'll see.

This is an outgrowth of the 1980s "sagebrush rebellion" by ranchers who want to keep the land in private hands rather than owned by the government for environmental and park purposes, so they can continue their climate-change causing profit-making on peoples' food addictions. The leader of this rural Oregon uprising is the son of Clive Bundy, the racist from Nevada who led a militia against the Bureau of Land Management which had imposed grazing fees on him. Certainly the tea party, the gun fanatics, the libertarian anti-one worlders, the corporate/fossil fool raiders and the racists are allies of these guys, and it could be a nucleus of the right-wing rebellion or secession movement that could happen in the mid-2020s, and would certainly be put down if a progressive or liberal government has taken over and is busy making the changes that the right-wing sees as interference with its ownership of the USA.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think it's true, and I have said before, that it won't take another Depression to stir the pot and bring regeneracy, civil war and/or revolution to the USA in this 4T, especially in the 2020s. Just the fear of things returning to the 2008 meltdown and 2009 depression could well blow things up. It may not take much to stoke the fear.

It won't take a civil war to impart The Regeneracy. For all their pros and cons the Millies do have a very good sense of practicality and respect for The Commons. There is an unstoppable wave coming that will overcome all.

Originally Posted by TnT

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...rst_tv_ad.html

It's fascinating to listen to this brief conversation between Trump and John Dickerson about "Radical Islam." When you listen to Trump in this relatively less contentious venue - one-on-one with a good journalist - it is scary how reasonable Trump makes his xenophobic position sound.

I am increasingly concerned that with the support of many relatively un- or mis- informed rust-belt, late-middle-age Boomer dudes, this election could go badly and we could find ourselves in a pickle. He is skilled at redirecting all the overt and subliminal anger that's out there, and directing it at those different. AND using nationalism/patriotism at the same time for the "positive" side of his message. It may be that we do, indeed, live in interesting times.

Yep, he's deflecting blame from the Yuppie MBAs of the 3T and onto "the darkies."

What a scum bag.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This is an outgrowth of the 1980s "sagebrush rebellion" by ranchers who want to keep the land in private hands rather than owned by the government for environmental and park purposes, so they can continue their climate-change causing profit-making on peoples' food addictions. The leader of this rural Oregon uprising is the son of Clive Bundy, the racist from Nevada who led a militia against the Bureau of Land Management which had imposed grazing fees on him. Certainly the tea party, the gun fanatics, the libertarian anti-one worlders, the corporate/fossil fool raiders and the racists are allies of these guys, and it could be a nucleus of the right-wing rebellion or secession movement that could happen in the mid-2020s, and would certainly be put down if a progressive or liberal government has taken over and is busy making the changes that the right-wing sees as interference with its ownership of the USA.

The Sagebrush Rebellion, however, did have a legitimate basis as a response to poorly conceived land use policies of the late 1970s, which did in fact need to be tweaked. What we see now with the Bundyites is way beyond any of that. It is lawlessness. The fact is, if I own parcel A and someone else owns parcel B, unless I have an explicit easement through parcel B, the owner of Parcel B can fence the boundary and block a trail, even it if it a trail dating from the 1870s. I have no right to that trail past my property line. Doesn't matter of Parcel B is owned by the US Government, Cowboy Jim or Bonny and Clyde. It's time to assert property rights against the lawless freaks.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This is an outgrowth of the 1980s "sagebrush rebellion" by ranchers who want to keep the land in private hands rather than owned by the government for environmental and park purposes, so they can continue their climate-change causing profit-making on peoples' food addictions. The leader of this rural Oregon uprising is the son of Clive Bundy, the racist from Nevada who led a militia against the Bureau of Land Management which had imposed grazing fees on him. Certainly the tea party, the gun fanatics, the libertarian anti-one worlders, the corporate/fossil fool raiders and the racists are allies of these guys, and it could be a nucleus of the right-wing rebellion or secession movement that could happen in the mid-2020s, and would certainly be put down if a progressive or liberal government has taken over and is busy making the changes that the right-wing sees as interference with its ownership of the USA.

How many vile stereotypes in one paragraph? What must it be like to be filled with so much intolerance and hate?

Yah. The public lands used to be freely used by the local public. That's what the pioneers did, and their descendants grew out of the old culture. The policy is of course changing, has been for some time. Teddy Roosevelt with his national parks might be an important starting point, but the power of the federal government in taking control of the land takes many forms. Some locals don't like it. Why would they?

Pardon if I can't take this too seriously. I don't see that there are enough of that sort of reactionary to matter a heck of a lot.

Is this the same old Vast Right Wing Conspiracy the Clintons warned about?

My view of the Iraq war has the Bush 43 Administrations attempt to administer Iraq failing in part due to too many conflicting visions. The neocons wanted to prove their fancy widest could replace feet on the ground with a quick in and out mission. The oil men wanted the prime contracts for the Iraq oil fields. Some well intended patriots thought expanding western culture at gunpoint would be a good idea that would be welcomed by the people held at gunpoint. Some might have actually believed the weapons of mass destruction cover story. Anyway, with different values and missions pulling in different directions, it was classic Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

This informs my view of the hypothetical Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. (VRWC?) There are lots of elements to it. Each element makes perfect sense if one looks at things from admittedly often parochial viewpoints. It was as natural for certain warriors and oil men to want to put boots on the ground near the oil supplies as it is for a rancher living many miles from the nearest police station to want to protect his loved ones. It is not hard for anyone with an open mind to understand the motivations of this aspect of the VRWC or that.

But, no, understanding isn't what is done. Demonizing and insulting is what is done.

But, anyway, I am dubious that all those folks are backing Bundy.

One of Will Rodger's better known quips was that he wasn't part of any organized political party. He was a Democrat. The Republicans are now in the same boat, different factions having highly diverse motivations, brought together by a value system that is becoming more fragmented, with many left hands that are becoming more and more disconnected from right hands. It is not hard if one has any empathy with fellow human beings to understand any of the many fragments. Still, understanding is not the same thing as allowing them to win.

I happen to believe we need more parks and conservation. If the locals want to continue to use land that doesn't belong to them, sure, so long as they acknowledge land use policies and are ready to pay the appropriate fees. Does that imply that these armed occupiers should be confronted with superior force along the pattern set at Waco? Not at all. They are trying to escalate a spiral of rhetoric and violence. I'd as soon avoid falling in with their plans.

At least when I'm not sharing Kinser's notion that we need more right wing fringe folk to escalate a cultural conflict that results in a regeneracy. If I put on that hat, sure, time to advocate misunderstanding, extreme rhetoric and random gunfire. Not wearing this hat today. I don't think Bundy is this generation's John Brown. Not really sure I want a John Brown.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Also, to let you in on a little secret of those in the know on the Dem side, it is rather amusing to us the degree that the two of the most skilled national campaign politicians in modern history, in the form of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are currently discounted if not seen as negatives. It's going to be the "October Surprise" to people such as yourself when these guys wipe the floor with the GOP nominee who will be hamstrung with going up against a historic woman nominee in the general (as opposed to appealing to the currently insane GOP base) and being constantly on the defensive over the countless video clips showing his true intentions as expressed over a year of trying to appease that insane GOP base.

We're lickin our chops, buddy, and endlessly entertained by those, like yourself, that have obviously fallen for the current entertaining news of presenting the insane GOP echo chamber as something viable in the general election. Thanks!

If Hillary needs proxies to fight her battles, she'll lose for sure. I hope that isn't the plan for success. And counting on sanity isn't reliable either.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The SoD Carter just apologized for his CURRENT use of a private server at DoD - it was a buried single paragraph not carried by most newspapers let alone on the evening news - do you consider him "smarmy" as well?

And for all those that once leaned Right (or Left) in their youth and now roll in the other direction as middle-aged adults - are they "smarmy" as well?

And "Bill's hatchet wielder?" Exactly when, as first lady, did she ever go on an initial offensive against anyone?

And "policy wonk???" I thought that was only derogatory among the least educated of the t-baggers.

If these are your reasons to stay home and let Trump take Virginia in November, then you obviously do have both feet fully-planted in Clinton Derangement Syndrome. It's weird.

I doesn't matter what anyone can prove or disprove. Hillary has been under the gun directly or on behalf of Bill since their early days in Arkansas. Whitewater was too complicated for the average person, and it smelled bad. Hillary being the good wife when Bill got fingered for <insert Bill's sex scandal of your choice>. That smelled bad too. The entire Bengazi and email scandals only had traction because there was history.

When Bill triangulated, it was considered to be smart sausage making. It wasn't ideal, but it worked. Now, the sides are hardly toking to each other. I doubt Hillary will get the same deference.

Originally Posted by B Butler

How many vile stereotypes in one paragraph? What must it be like to be filled with so much intolerance and hate?

I dunno; you tell me. Me, I'm just saying it like it is.

Yah. The public lands used to be freely used by the local public. That's what the pioneers did, and their descendants grew out of the old culture. The policy is of course changing, has been for some time. Teddy Roosevelt with his national parks might be an important starting point, but the power of the federal government in taking control of the land takes many forms. Some locals don't like it. Why would they?

Pardon if I can't take this too seriously. I don't see that there are enough of that sort of reactionary to matter a heck of a lot.

Is this the same old Vast Right Wing Conspiracy the Clintons warned about?

The warning was certainly very well justified. It caused the takeover of the House from Nov.1994 to Nov.2006, and again from 2010 to the present. That was some power. Limbaugh, Beck and folks did quite a number on us. Not to mention Ken Starr. You bet. It is not just one sort of reactionary we're seeing; they are all potential allies. No, this new Bundy uprising is not the start of a civil war. It's just a potential sign of things to come.

My view of the Iraq war has the Bush 43 Administrations attempt to administer Iraq failing in part due to too many conflicting visions. The neocons wanted to prove their fancy widest could replace feet on the ground with a quick in and out mission. The oil men wanted the prime contracts for the Iraq oil fields. Some well intended patriots thought expanding western culture at gunpoint would be a good idea that would be welcomed by the people held at gunpoint. Some might have actually believed the weapons of mass destruction cover story. Anyway, with different values and missions pulling in different directions, it was classic Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

This informs my view of the hypothetical Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. (VRWC?) There are lots of elements to it. Each element makes perfect sense if one looks at things from admittedly often parochial viewpoints. It was as natural for certain warriors and oil men to want to put boots on the ground near the oil supplies as it is for a rancher living many miles from the nearest police station to want to protect his loved ones. It is not hard for anyone with an open mind to understand the motivations of this aspect of the VRWC or that.

But, no, understanding isn't what is done. Demonizing and insulting is what is done.

But, anyway, I am dubious that all those folks are backing Bundy.

Maybe not. But Bundy is calling them to his side. I've seen a number of these calls, some from those who fear gun control will take their guns away, so they will "start shooting." The potential is there. You saw what Dboy posted and said here.

One of Will Rodger's better known quips was that he wasn't part of any organized political party. He was a Democrat. The Republicans are now in the same boat, different factions having highly diverse motivations, brought together by a value system that is becoming more fragmented, with many left hands that are becoming more and more disconnected from right hands. It is not hard if one has any empathy with fellow human beings to understand any of the many fragments. Still, understanding is not the same thing as allowing them to win.

I happen to believe we need more parks and conservation. If the locals want to continue to use land that doesn't belong to them, sure, so long as they acknowledge land use policies and are ready to pay the appropriate fees. Does that imply that these armed occupiers should be confronted with superior force along the pattern set at Waco? Not at all. They are trying to escalate a spiral of rhetoric and violence. I'd as soon avoid falling in with their plans.

I'm not saying I want a Waco either. But somehow they can't be allowed to take over and resist paying the fees and obeying the law. What do you suggest, other than demonizing me and calling me delusional?

At least when I'm not sharing Kinser's notion that we need more right wing fringe folk to escalate a cultural conflict that results in a regeneracy. If I put on that hat, sure, time to advocate misunderstanding, extreme rhetoric and random gunfire. Not wearing this hat today. I don't think Bundy is this generation's John Brown. Not really sure I want a John Brown.

We'll see. Of course we don't want one. And today, Bundy is the grey/red side, Brown was on the blue side. The polarization in our cold civil war is clear. Bundy and folks like him and their references to "the peoples' right" to own land and "interference by the government" and "violation of the constitution" is common to all these right wing groups. An alliance is certainly conceivable.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The Sagebrush Rebellion, however, did have a legitimate basis as a response to poorly conceived land use policies of the late 1970s, which did in fact need to be tweaked. What we see now with the Bundyites is way beyond any of that. It is lawlessness. The fact is, if I own parcel A and someone else owns parcel B, unless I have an explicit easement through parcel B, the owner of Parcel B can fence the boundary and block a trail, even it if it a trail dating from the 1870s. I have no right to that trail past my property line. Doesn't matter of Parcel B is owned by the US Government, Cowboy Jim or Bonny and Clyde. It's time to assert property rights against the lawless freaks.

That seems right to me, probably. The Sagebrush Rebellion was cited as a major force behind the Republican surge in the western red states, which was basically permanent. So naturally I didn't agree with that, as basically a motivation to ally with right-wingers of all stripes, over whatever the original rebellion issue was-- even if it had some legitimacy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There's nothing here but conjecture and anecdotes; your views are not supported within the 2008/2012 Coalition.

You're caught up in the Trump circus show brought to you by the 'entertaining news' (the Donald finally issued his first poli-ad saying he felt guilty not having to do so since he's been getting enormous free coverage by the entertaining news). It's pretty obvious this is a form of selection bias - you don't like Clinton and only hold that 'information' that supports her un-electability in your mind.

I went through this with another poster, JustPassingThrough ("the polls are skewed! the polls are skewed!), in 2012 and it was pretty amusing - at least up until a few days after that election; the stakes were high for him and I thought we might have to call a suicide watch. I don't think you have much actual interest in this election so I'm hoping my derived amusement will be fairly unlimited up to and hopefully at least a few weeks past November 8.

We're definitely marking your words.

I remember hearing a story (on NPR I think?) about how Bill Clinton is still one of the most popular political figures in the US. Anyone who thinks the Clintons have some sort of horrible taint that makes Hillary unelectable needs to get out of the BS Bubble.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Latest news on the revolutionary spiral of violence. Y'all Qaida has taken over a wildlife refuge. The government intends to respond... eventually. Well, they said they would. They're talking about it.

"Y'all Qaida" describes those idiots perfectly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The polarization in our cold civil war is clear. Bundy and folks like him and their references to "the peoples' right" to own land and "interference by the government" and "violation of the constitution" is common to all these right wing groups. An alliance is certainly conceivable.

That's a more appropriate summary of common threads in the Red world view than your usual. I could emphasize it a bit from the gun question discussion. Looking at history...

The old approach worked. The new approach isn't working. Why do these (expletive deleted) liberal city slickers want to change our system that is working to their system that isn't? Right of the People! Interference by the government! Violation of the Constitution!

In New England I can see both sides. Massachusetts is as Blue as one is going to get and has medium strict gun laws. We're doing pretty good. Statistically we fit comfortably with the affluent homogeneous nations of Europe. While one should always strive for improvement, outrage that humans are still being human is out of place. Still, the rural states of northern New England with their hunting culture, even more homogeneous population and gun rights traditions are doing even better. Much better. There is something to be said on some issues for the Good Ol Days.

It's easy to see where they are coming from. On the very different land use front, if they are profiting from a system that has been in place forever and has been working fine from their perspective, can you expect a different point of view?

On the other hand the idea of putting troops near the source of the raw materials, a variation of the old theme of colonial imperialism, didn't work so good in Bush 43's Iraq conflict. Not everything that has worked for a long time continues to work well forever. The same thing might be said of global warming. Humankind has been burning stuff whenever they've felt like burning stuff forever. Why should that change now? (Rhetorical question. We both know the answer.)

Not every old idea is bad nor every new idea good. Not every new idea is bad, nor every old idea good. It just seems that way depending on how well things are working around these here parts. My list of fallacies includes Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem and Argumentum Ad Novitatem... arguing that something is better because it is traditional, or because it is innovative. Habits of thinking either that the old must be true or that if something is broke one has to fix it aren't entirely without merit, but neither is automatically correct in a follow blindly without thinking sort of way. Those on either side of partisan divide can get put ideology ahead of finding something that works.

And one can still be wary of tin foil hats. There is not a conspiracy under every single bed. Yes, there are over arching liberal and conservative perspectives that tend to make allies of convenience. There can be a perceived rational tactic to gang up on them (expletive deleted) liberal city slickers... or the (expletive deleted) rural yahoos. Can't say there isn't. I just see a wide diversity of motivations among both groups. I've been stereotyped a bunch of times by conservatives insisting that all progressives are alike. I don't think we are, particularly, and don't think the conservatives are either.

Bob, the graphic you posted is misleading.

Take the arrow referring to the shall issue permits. This appears to be based on Lott's "more guns less crime" hypothesis. I did my own analysis by settling up the question as a natural experiment. I found that the experimental group (states that issued permits over a particularly period) saw a slower decrease in crime rates than the control group. The result was not statistically significant. So the conclusion was there is no evidence that supported Lott's assertion that more guns meant more crime. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the person who drew that chart had Lott's study (or something similar) in mind for that entry.

As for the gun control arrows, laws are passed all the time. The graph highlights gun control measures of the early 1960's as significant and ignores those passed at inopportune times like the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1993 Brady Bill or the 1994 Assault weapons ban. I suspect the arrows referring to laws are probably cherry picked and likely meaningless.

Originally Posted by Odin

I remember hearing a story (on NPR I think?) about how Bill Clinton is still one of the most popular political figures in the US. Anyone who thinks the Clintons have some sort of horrible taint that makes Hillary unelectable needs to get out of the BS Bubble...

I would put Bill in the photo-opposite frame Trump occupies. Like Trump, he is both loved and hated. He may help in the primaries, though there seems little reason for Hillary to worry. Unless the polling is off by a huge margin, she seems destined to win the nomination in any case. I think he's a net-negative in the general, though.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would put Bill in the photo-opposite frame Trump occupies. Like Trump, he is both loved and hated. He may help in the primaries, though there seems little reason for Hillary to worry. Unless the polling is off by a huge margin, she seems destined to win the nomination in any case. I think he's a net-negative in the general, though.

In my personal experience a lot of the support for Hillary comes from more "apolitical" people who don't talk about politics much, this creates an illusion of extreme unpopularity because the people who are most likely to talk about politics also tend to be the people, on both sides, who hate her.

Originally Posted by B Butler

My view of the Iraq war has the Bush 43 Administrations attempt to administer Iraq failing in part due to too many conflicting visions.

True. But this is the case with all massive projects. It is the project manager's (i.e. the prez) responsibility to coordinate the views so that they more or less sing for the same page. Bush failed to do that and because of this he is solely responsible for its failure.

Does that imply that these armed occupiers should be confronted with superior force along the pattern set at Waco? Not at all.

Funny how this view seems to taken made selectively.

I was discussing this incident with the girl who got dragged out of school with a guy at the gym. He was arguing that the use of force was completely justifiable because she did not follow the orders of the legitimate authority present. I pointed out if this is right does than mean the government should have moved against the protestors at the Bundy ranch? He replied "that's different". When I inquired in what way he just asserted more loudly that it just was and left in a huff.

Over the last year we have had two demonstrations by white men, and a large number by black folks. I watched the Ferguson protest on TV for a bit and saw that after waiting the authorities eventually advanced employing superior weaponry (tear gas and what looked like armored personnel carriers) to drive the protestors from the streets.

Now imagine if the authorities had advanced at the Bundy ranch. Shots are fired, and a few people are killed/injured. Who would get the blame?

Now, suppose there had been a contingent of heavily armed black men at Ferguson, who announced they would defend their people if attacked. So when the authorities advanced, shots are fired and people killed. Who do you think would get the blame?

If this article is right, some Oathkeepers tried to get some of the Ferguson protestors to bear arms as a 2nd amendment statement against lawless law enforcement.

Andrews explained that he and members of his group spent almost an entire night speaking with black protestors about the events in Ferguson and the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms: "Every person we talked to said if they carried they’d be shot by police."

This might explain why black men don't do these type of armed protestors. Now where do you suppose they got the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to white people?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Bob, the graphic you posted is misleading.

The first time I posted the graphic I added lots of qualifiers to the effect of 'the red text is blatantly spun'. The curve itself as solid as you're going to get from government bureaucracy. The red text attributing this or that change in the numbers is due to a specific cause can be highly contested.

I do think one can make a case with it, though, that the old ways worked in the old days.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was discussing this incident with the girl who got dragged out of school with a guy at the gym. He was arguing that the use of force was completely justifiable because she did not follow the orders of the legitimate authority present. I pointed out if this is right does than mean the government should have moved against the protestors at the Bundy ranch? He replied "that's different". When I inquired in what way he just asserted more loudly that it just was and left in a huff.

Over the last year we have had two demonstrations by white men, and a large number by black folks. I watched the Ferguson protest on TV for a bit and saw that after waiting the authorities eventually advanced employing superior weaponry (tear gas and what looked like armored personnel carriers) to drive the protestors from the streets.

Now imagine if the authorities had advanced at the Bundy ranch. Shots are fired, and a few people are killed/injured. Who would get the blame? (Snip)

This might explain why black men don't do these type of armed protestors. Now where do you suppose they got the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to white people?

You don't need to convince me that gun policy and race policy are deeply intertwined. The collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the notion that individuals don't have a right to own and carry weapons, was a child of Jim Crow. While the efforts of Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King and others of their kind have made large dents in inequality, you are quite correct that there is more to be done.

Not all of it is directly race related. Before Waco and Ruby Ridge, if one defied government authority one was apt to be met by government force, be ye white, black or purple with green polka dots. No matter how big one's arsenal was, the government's was bigger. I was watching the rural militia movement as an escalating spiral of violence at that time. Clinton 42 pulled the plug on it. The FBI and BATF were given new rules of engagement that took the steam out of that particular spiral. I don't see race as having anything to do with that federal change in the rules of engagement.

Did every inner city local police department get the memo? Obviously not.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Did every inner city local police department get the memo? Obviously not.

That's the point.

I do object to your assertion that "much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black." My issues with Obama are due to his polices( eg, the killing of unborn babies) and has nothing to due with his race. This is also the case for the people that I know. In my opinion the people who have contempt for Obama because he is black represent a very small minority. I also don't expect that I will like Clinton's policies any better.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He may want the Hard Right to win, make fools of itself in places in which it has yet done, and show its contempt for all things human so that Americans will support a Socialist insurrection. For him, the crony capitalist and the brutal boss are the forges of revolutionary sentiment. As I see it both are agents of nothing more than further dehumanization and breaking of people.

Brutal tyrannies of the Right can last very long times. Anyone who thinks that he can outlive those tyrannies while in the revolutionary underground fools himself. But think of how Franco's Spain worked in the context of world revolution -- from a bourgeois democracy in the 1930s through a plutocratic, religious-fundamentalist regime for nearly forty years, and then to another bourgeois democracy. That obviously does not fit any Marxist timetable.

Marxism-Leninism is dead as an appeal for forcing political change on a national scale. As I say, we are wiser to try to humanize capitalism than to overthrow it.


The fact: much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black. But guess what else is true: although President Obama typically gets approval ratings in the high 40s (which is very good for the seventh and soon the eighty year of a two-term Presidency), approval for the Republican-dominated Congress is even lower. Much lower. I have yet to see a poll showing approval for an incumbent Democratic Senator below 45% (which is usually good enough for getting re-elected), many Republican Senators have approvals around 40% or lower. This holds true even in the South, now the alleged strength of the Republican Party.

It is too early for me to say that any Republican candidate for President offers the possibility of being shown as a dangerous radical even if such seems evident enough to me.

Except that the Republicans have huge amounts of Koch-aine to fund some vicious campaigns and to flood the airwaves with Orwellian propaganda.

Originally Posted by radind

I do object to your assertion that "much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black." My issues with Obama are due to his polices( eg, the killing of unborn babies) and has nothing to due with his race. This is also the case for the people that I know. In my opinion the people who have contempt for Obama because he is black represent a very small minority. I also don't expect that I will like Clinton's policies any better.

Whether you yourself don't like Obama because he's black or not, is not relevant. Many folks are like you and dislike his policies. Many others don't like him because he's black. It's not the only reason, even for them. But it can be seen as a factor because of some statements by tea party folks, and because of the voting record of southern whites.

Killing of unborn babies? Why can't we make the abortion bill available to all who want it, and then outlaw abortion for most pregnancies after a few weeks? Why not take the issue off the table instead of continuing the culture wars? Don't we have more important issues to be concerned about? Opposing Clinton and Obama over abortion, means you support global warming, inequality, money dominating politics, corporate misbehavior, unnecessary wars, and all the other results of Republican policies.