Just a thought I was entertaining earlier today...
What if all Trump's talk about refusing to concede wasn't really serious, or was at least also intended to serve a less sinister, back-up purpose...
He wanted Democrats to think "If he has to resort to those tactics, it's because he knows he can't win legitimately", thus lulling enough of them into thinking they could stay home.
Nothing, but nothing that was said, would ever lead me to just not bother turning out to vote.
I'm not saying this can't happen-just that it's hard to understand...
So is anyone voting for Trump. The last few years have taught me that "what can I imagine myself doing" is absolutely no guide to other people's likely actions.
So is anyone voting for Trump. The last few years have taught me that "what can I imagine myself doing" is absolutely no guide to other people's likely actions.
A surprisingly large number of people is voting for him - so far not enough in the places he needed to win, but there are all the mountains and West Coast results to come in still.
There are the results of EVERY state to come in -- no state has called yet. They will be counting votes for at least a couple more days, many of them. And vote totals aren't due until mid-December, so they can count as slowly as they want.
Just a thought I was entertaining earlier today...
What if all Trump's talk about refusing to concede wasn't really serious, or was at least also intended to serve a less sinister, back-up purpose...
He wanted Democrats to think "If he has to resort to those tactics, it's because he knows he can't win legitimately", thus lulling enough of them into thinking they could stay home.
Nothing, but nothing that was said, would ever lead me to just not bother turning out to vote.
I'm not saying this can't happen-just that it's hard to understand...
Politics is like a religion for me, plus I am familiar with the idea of rosy predictions suppressing the vote among the optimistic. So it's hard for me to understand, as well.
But you and I are not neccessarily the average person.
The (projected?) electoral vote count I've seen has had T at 213 for several hours. Joe's total has varied, depending on which source. Currently, HuffPost has Joe at 238. I think that's the highest I've seen, among various sources.
They're the figures we've been getting for the last 5 or 6 hours also. It's not quite 3.30 am in Arizona with suitable variations across the country , so it's not surprising that counting seems to have reached a halt. Lots of other elections to be counted also.
Dlet has just sent a note that Biden is expected to get 286 - a comfortable margin but not the large victory we'd been hoping for.
Feeling for you all in the U.S. I never thought I would see the day when so many conservative Americans would put their candidate winning above democracy. But maybe the true Trump believers really believe the Democrats are the cheats and Trump is a saint.
On a lighter note, the somewhat disreputable UK paper, the 'Daily Star' has the most accurate prediction of all the papers, viz: "Old Fart wins Election". This gave me a much needed chuckle. As an OF myself, I thought the subtitle too was right on the money: " . . . He's ether a lunatic or senile". Hmmm ... many a true word spoken in jest.
The Daily Star, I might add has been none too polite about Johnson and co; I might have to take up subscription!
Feeling for you all in the U.S. I never thought I would see the day when so many conservative Americans would put their candidate winning above democracy. But maybe the true Trump believers really believe the Democrats are the cheats and Trump is a saint.
I do think that many more Americans than I had hoped have been taken in by Trump's misinformation. I am very sorry for everyone, and afraid. My heart goes out to my American friends and family, especially those on the ship. I haven't cried yet. I have been too busy trying to keep myself in hand. I got banned from facebook for three days for calling a covidiot a liar. That's all it took... one word.
On a lighter note, the somewhat disreputable UK paper, the 'Daily Star' has the most accurate prediction of all the papers, viz: "Old Fart wins Election". This gave me a much needed chuckle. As an OF myself, I thought the subtitle too was right on the money: " . . . He's ether a lunatic or senile". Hmmm ... many a true word spoken in jest.
On last week’s broadcast of Saturday Night Live, host John Mulaney referred to the election as our “elderly man contest.”
Yes, do avoid the BBC ... this morning they dedicated several minutes to hearing what Nigel F***ing Farage had to say. At least there's a reason for Trump to be on our screens in coverage of the US elections.
It's Florida Latinxs I can't understand. In what universe can you convince people that Biden is a revolutionary socialist in the Castro mould?
AIR there's an episode of The West Wing where it's explained that all a republican has to do to get elected in Florida is go to a Latino rally and shout "Cuba libre! Cuba libre!". I don't think it means ordering a rum & coke.
It's Florida Latinxs I can't understand. In what universe can you convince people that Biden is a revolutionary socialist in the Castro mould?
AIR there's an episode of The West Wing where it's explained that all a republican has to do to get elected in Florida is go to a Latino rally and shout "Cuba libre! Cuba libre!". I don't think it means ordering a rum & coke.
Oh I know it's all about Cuba, and I know the methodology, but I can't understand how it is actually successful - how do you bait and swap all the way from a basic level of universal healthcare (say) to Communist dictatorship?
I am well aware that's it's a false equivalence trick - universal healthcare = socialised medicine = socialism = communism = Stalinism, but bugger me there's some pretty massive steps there.
And all the time Trump are the one trying to stop votes being counted, encouraging intimidation of opposition voters, voter suppression and so on and so forth? Why do people fall for it, when it's self-evidently laughable?
Being afraid of creeping socialism in the US is a bit like being afraid of being cut off by snow in Death Valley.
It's Florida Latinxs I can't understand. In what universe can you convince people that Biden is a revolutionary socialist in the Castro mould?
I know Canadians who think that. Not as many as there are in America(only about 15% of those surveyed prefer Donald to Joe), but if that notion can survive in a relative temperate political climate like Canada's, no surprise that it would in the manichean world of Cuban exiles.
And factor in that Biden was part of the very administration that began the process of normalizing ties with Hades itself.
Before the NZ election I read a comment on a fb post claiming Jacinda Arden was a communist and to read the history books if we didn't believe him. I told him I studied history and the idea anyone believed Arden was the next Stalin blew my mind!
It's Florida Latinxs I can't understand. In what universe can you convince people that Biden is a revolutionary socialist in the Castro mould?
AIR there's an episode of The West Wing where it's explained that all a republican has to do to get elected in Florida is go to a Latino rally and shout "Cuba libre! Cuba libre!". I don't think it means ordering a rum & coke.
Oh I know it's all about Cuba, and I know the methodology, but I can't understand how it is actually successful - how do you bait and swap all the way from a basic level of universal healthcare (say) to Communist dictatorship?
I am well aware that's it's a false equivalence trick - universal healthcare = socialised medicine = socialism = communism = Stalinism, but bugger me there's some pretty massive steps there.
And all the time Trump are the one trying to stop votes being counted, encouraging intimidation of opposition voters, voter suppression and so on and so forth? Why do people fall for it, when it's self-evidently laughable?
Being afraid of creeping socialism in the US is a bit like being afraid of being cut off by snow in Death Valley.
You're assuming engagement with the issues and a rational choice based on that. Most voters aren't that interested. Social media has brought negative campaigning to its apotheosis - all that's necessary for many,
perhaps a majority of, voters is to target them with some clever memes that demonise the opposition. There was a guy interviewed in the Guardian, a poor city dweller I think, who was voting for Trump because "Every morning I turn on my phone and watch videos and stuff and Biden wants to legalise pedophiles"
Before the NZ election I read a comment on a fb post claiming Jacinda Ardern was a communist and to read the history books if we didn't believe him. I told him I studied history and the idea anyone believed Ardern was the next Stalin blew my mind!
Farcebark, Twiddle, and their horrible friends, have a lot to answer
I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as "wanting to believe", and if at this point you still find "Biden is the leader of a satanic pedophile ring" and "Drinking lysol will cure covid-19" to be plausible propositions, that's on you, not the platform that simply allowed those inane ideas to grace your range of vision.
I think the problem is that while those ideas look crazy in isolation, people are presented with them in a context of less crazy-looking ideas that support them.
It's Florida Latinxs I can't understand. In what universe can you convince people that Biden is a revolutionary socialist in the Castro mould?
I know Canadians who think that. Not as many as there are in America(only about 15% of those surveyed prefer Donald to Joe), but if that notion can survive in a relative temperate political climate like Canada's, no surprise that it would in the manichean world of Cuban exiles.
And factor in that Biden was part of the very administration that began the process of normalizing ties with Hades itself.
I think the problem is that while those ideas look crazy in isolation, people are presented with them in a context of less crazy-looking ideas that support them.
Kind of like how two negatives make a positive? I've always found that a steaming heap of crazy is still cra-cra. As always, YMMV.
The other thing about Americans who roots are in Cuba and Venezuela is -- a lot of them are white.
Really??? I don't know about Venezuela; but all the pics I've ever seen of Cubans (whether in the US or Cuba) certainly look "non-white". Wide variation in skin tone, but not white. Unless maybe you mean they're pure Spanish, with no indigenous ancestry?
I knew a non-Cuban Latina who was pure Spanish, and caught a lot of flack in school from Latinx students who had indigenous ancestry. They thought she didn't speak Spanish. Until she finally told them off.
[tangent} "Latinx" - this is a new word to me. Do I say it latinks? It is apparently instead of Latino/Latina, the merits of which is lost on me. I'd use none of the three words, tending to say Latin American instead. It is not a particularly visible minority where I live, is "Latin American" rude? Brief look indicates it is a recently created word.[/tangent]
The other thing about Americans who roots are in Cuba and Venezuela is -- a lot of them are white.
Really??? I don't know about Venezuela; but all the pics I've ever seen of Cubans (whether in the US or Cuba) certainly look "non-white". Wide variation in skin tone, but not white. Unless maybe you mean they're pure Spanish, with no indigenous ancestry?
[tangent} "Latinx" - this is a new word to me. Do I say it latinks? It is apparently instead of Latino/Latina, the merits of which is lost on me. I'd use none of the three words, tending to say Latin American instead. It is not a particularly visible minority where I live, is "Latin American" rude? Brief look indicates it is a recently created word.[/tangent]
It dates back to the early 2000s, I think, and is an attempt at a gender neutral term. I always hear it pronounced Lah-TEE-nex.
Latin American is not equivalent to, say, African American or Italian American. Latin American, as I’ve always heard it used, means someone from or who lives in Latin America, which does not include the US, or at least not most of it, but does include places such as Brazil, Haiti, Quebec or anywhere else in the Americas that Romance languages are spoken. Latinos and Latinas who were born in the US may have Latin American heritage, but they are not themselves Latin Americans.
Latin America is a group of countries and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere where Romance languages such as Spanish, French or Portuguese are predominantly spoken.
Latin America is generally understood to consist of the entire continent of South America in addition to Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean whose inhabitants speak a Romance language.
Latin America: the part of the American continents south of the United States in which Spanish, Portuguese, or French is officially spoken.
I’ll concede these definitions would all exclude Quebec, so I should not have included it in my example. But as French is officially spoken in Haiti, and Portuguese is officially spoken in Brazil, they are indeed Latin American, and are listed as such in the Britannica.com article.
Easy/sloppy way to think of it: Latin America is all the land from the US-Mexico border, through Central America, all the way down to Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America. Ocean islands get more complicated, 'cause other heritages and languages.
So Canada, the US, Mexico, Central America, and South America = the Americas, or the countries of the Americas.
The other thing about Americans who roots are in Cuba and Venezuela is -- a lot of them are white.
Really??? I don't know about Venezuela; but all the pics I've ever seen of Cubans (whether in the US or Cuba) certainly look "non-white". Wide variation in skin tone, but not white. Unless maybe you mean they're pure Spanish, with no indigenous ancestry?
Race is of course a construct. The definition of 'white' in Australia in the 1970's was limited to people from the British Isles who spoke English. People from the northern part of Europe were grudgingly accepted, especially if they spoke English with an Australian accent, but Greeks and Italians were right out. I'm sure I've said this before. Its a bugbear for me, the way 'white' changes in Australia and who claims it.
Looking at the Wiki article's "Etymology and definitions" section, there are many constructs of what Latin America includes. The version I mentioned is in "Contemporary Definitions" section.
The term is sometimes used more broadly to refer to all of the Americas south of the United States,[27] thus including the Guianas (French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname), the Anglophone Caribbean (and Belize); the Francophone Caribbean; and the Dutch Caribbean. This definition emphasizes a similar socioeconomic history of the region, which was characterized by formal or informal colonialism, rather than cultural aspects (see, for example, dependency theory).[28] As such, some sources avoid this oversimplification by using the phrase "Latin America and the Caribbean" instead, as in the United Nations geoscheme for the Americas.[29][30][31]
That's one of the better Wiki articles I've read, and quite possibly the longest. A textbook unto itself.
In the US, "Hispanic" or "Latino" is not a race but an ethnicity. It is in fact the only ethnicity the Census Bureau recognizes. So every person must answer two questions: Race (White, Black, Amer Indian or AK native, Pacific Islander, Asian) and Ethnicity (Hispanic or Not Hispanic). So it makes perfect sense that 85% of Cuban expats would identify as white, if those are their only other choices.
Living some 12,000 km away allows me to speak with authority. When I was growing up, North America was Canada and the US; then came Central America starting of course with Mexico. Where it finished was not as clear, but Panama with its Canal was for many an easy choice. South from there was either Southern America if you were speaking in geographical terms, or Latin America in political ones. Cuba, Haiti and the other islands were of course the Caribbean Islands.
The Caribbean was sea where you found the West Indies when I was a kid. Cuba, Haiti, etc were not on my radar. I was all Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Desmond Haynes, Joel Garner, and of course 10CC's Dreadlock Holiday, which to my young mind was just a song about how brilliant cricket was.
In the US, "Hispanic" or "Latino" is not a race but an ethnicity. It is in fact the only ethnicity the Census Bureau recognizes.
Generally speaking, "Latino" means someone from Latin America (or of Latin American ancestry), whereas "Hispanic" means someone who comes from (or whose ancestors come from) a country where the primary spoken language is Spanish. So one can be Latino but not Hispanic (e.g. someone from Brazil, or whose ancestors came from Brazil) or Hispanic but not Latino (e.g. Spaniards or Filipinos).
FWIW, most "Hispanics" are considered "white" by the U.S. This dates back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). After the U.S. stole the northern half of what was then Mexico in order to expand chattel slavery, the Mexican government insisted that any of its citizens remaining in what would become American territory be considered American citizens, and at the time only white people could be American citizens. So the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stipulated that people who are now considered "Hispanic" are "white" under U.S. law. Of course this did not stop Americans from treating their new countrymens' treaty rights with the same general disregard as the treaty rights of various Native American groups, but on paper Hispanics are considered "white" under U.S. law.
I think the problem is that while those ideas look crazy in isolation, people are presented with them in a context of less crazy-looking ideas that support them.
Kind of like how two negatives make a positive? I've always found that a steaming heap of crazy is still cra-cra. As always, YMMV.
It's more that you start out with some mild gateway crazy, Christianity is derived from Mithraism, or billionaires won't invest in the economy if they don't get tax cuts, thinking it won't hurt, and then that makes stronger variants of crazy look acceptable and then you're starting along the slippery slope to intellectually sleeping on a bare mattress covered in human waste and believing anthropogenic global warming can't be real because all the carbon dioxide falls out of the sky or Trump cares about anything other than his ego.
I think the problem is that while those ideas look crazy in isolation, people are presented with them in a context of less crazy-looking ideas that support them.
Kind of like how two negatives make a positive? I've always found that a steaming heap of crazy is still cra-cra. As always, YMMV.
It's more that you start out with some mild gateway crazy, Christianity is derived from Mithraism, or billionaires won't invest in the economy if they don't get tax cuts, thinking it won't hurt, and then that makes stronger variants of crazy look acceptable and then you're starting along the slippery slope to intellectually sleeping on a bare mattress covered in human waste and believing anthropogenic global warming can't be real because all the carbon dioxide falls out of the sky or Trump cares about anything other than his ego.
I think a good example is anti-semitism. When expressed within a general left-wing milieu, and maybe with some of its most explicit Jewish-related context rendered into a dog-whistle, it can sound simply like standard leftist rhetoric against capitalism, with maybe a slightly more of a focus on banking than is usual.
From what I saw, the accusations of anti-semitism against Jeremy Corbyn were pretty much bogus, but the one time he did eff up was in commenting positively on that mural of a buncha menschy-looking financiers sitting around a Monopoly board and counting money, under an eye-in-the-pyramid symbol.
I'm pretty sure Corbyn just gave that image a casual glance and registered it as standard anti-capitalism, though I'll also say that as someone who is either a trotskyist or at least moves in trotskyist circles, Corbyn should have recognized the origins of the imagery in the mural.
Comments
So is anyone voting for Trump. The last few years have taught me that "what can I imagine myself doing" is absolutely no guide to other people's likely actions.
A surprisingly large number of people is voting for him - so far not enough in the places he needed to win, but there are all the mountains and West Coast results to come in still.
Politics is like a religion for me, plus I am familiar with the idea of rosy predictions suppressing the vote among the optimistic. So it's hard for me to understand, as well.
But you and I are not neccessarily the average person.
Thanks for this.
Dlet has just sent a note that Biden is expected to get 286 - a comfortable margin but not the large victory we'd been hoping for.
The Daily Star, I might add has been none too polite about Johnson and co; I might have to take up subscription!
I do think that many more Americans than I had hoped have been taken in by Trump's misinformation. I am very sorry for everyone, and afraid. My heart goes out to my American friends and family, especially those on the ship. I haven't cried yet. I have been too busy trying to keep myself in hand. I got banned from facebook for three days for calling a covidiot a liar. That's all it took... one word.
My blood pressure and sanity will benefit therefrom, as I won't see pictures of Trump's hideous grinning (or, hopefully, grimacing) visage.
AIR there's an episode of The West Wing where it's explained that all a republican has to do to get elected in Florida is go to a Latino rally and shout "Cuba libre! Cuba libre!". I don't think it means ordering a rum & coke.
Oh I know it's all about Cuba, and I know the methodology, but I can't understand how it is actually successful - how do you bait and swap all the way from a basic level of universal healthcare (say) to Communist dictatorship?
I am well aware that's it's a false equivalence trick - universal healthcare = socialised medicine = socialism = communism = Stalinism, but bugger me there's some pretty massive steps there.
And all the time Trump are the one trying to stop votes being counted, encouraging intimidation of opposition voters, voter suppression and so on and so forth? Why do people fall for it, when it's self-evidently laughable?
Being afraid of creeping socialism in the US is a bit like being afraid of being cut off by snow in Death Valley.
I know Canadians who think that. Not as many as there are in America(only about 15% of those surveyed prefer Donald to Joe), but if that notion can survive in a relative temperate political climate like Canada's, no surprise that it would in the manichean world of Cuban exiles.
And factor in that Biden was part of the very administration that began the process of normalizing ties with Hades itself.
You're assuming engagement with the issues and a rational choice based on that. Most voters aren't that interested. Social media has brought negative campaigning to its apotheosis - all that's necessary for many,
perhaps a majority of, voters is to target them with some clever memes that demonise the opposition. There was a guy interviewed in the Guardian, a poor city dweller I think, who was voting for Trump because "Every morning I turn on my phone and watch videos and stuff and Biden wants to legalise pedophiles"
O well - if that's true, Up With Communism!
I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as "wanting to believe", and if at this point you still find "Biden is the leader of a satanic pedophile ring" and "Drinking lysol will cure covid-19" to be plausible propositions, that's on you, not the platform that simply allowed those inane ideas to grace your range of vision.
Biden was in the Reagan administration?
Kind of like how two negatives make a positive? I've always found that a steaming heap of crazy is still cra-cra. As always, YMMV.
Really??? I don't know about Venezuela; but all the pics I've ever seen of Cubans (whether in the US or Cuba) certainly look "non-white". Wide variation in skin tone, but not white. Unless maybe you mean they're pure Spanish, with no indigenous ancestry?
I knew a non-Cuban Latina who was pure Spanish, and caught a lot of flack in school from Latinx students who had indigenous ancestry. They thought she didn't speak Spanish. Until she finally told them off.
Latin American is not equivalent to, say, African American or Italian American. Latin American, as I’ve always heard it used, means someone from or who lives in Latin America, which does not include the US, or at least not most of it, but does include places such as Brazil, Haiti, Quebec or anywhere else in the Americas that Romance languages are spoken. Latinos and Latinas who were born in the US may have Latin American heritage, but they are not themselves Latin Americans.
Or from Britannica.com:
Or from Dictionary.com: I’ll concede these definitions would all exclude Quebec, so I should not have included it in my example. But as French is officially spoken in Haiti, and Portuguese is officially spoken in Brazil, they are indeed Latin American, and are listed as such in the Britannica.com article.
So Canada, the US, Mexico, Central America, and South America = the Americas, or the countries of the Americas.
AIUI, from a US point of view.
As I understand it, this is an element of the infamous Southern Strategy, to broaden out the common understanding of "white" in America.
That's one of the better Wiki articles I've read, and quite possibly the longest. A textbook unto itself.
Generally speaking, "Latino" means someone from Latin America (or of Latin American ancestry), whereas "Hispanic" means someone who comes from (or whose ancestors come from) a country where the primary spoken language is Spanish. So one can be Latino but not Hispanic (e.g. someone from Brazil, or whose ancestors came from Brazil) or Hispanic but not Latino (e.g. Spaniards or Filipinos).
I think a good example is anti-semitism. When expressed within a general left-wing milieu, and maybe with some of its most explicit Jewish-related context rendered into a dog-whistle, it can sound simply like standard leftist rhetoric against capitalism, with maybe a slightly more of a focus on banking than is usual.
From what I saw, the accusations of anti-semitism against Jeremy Corbyn were pretty much bogus, but the one time he did eff up was in commenting positively on that mural of a buncha menschy-looking financiers sitting around a Monopoly board and counting money, under an eye-in-the-pyramid symbol.
I'm pretty sure Corbyn just gave that image a casual glance and registered it as standard anti-capitalism, though I'll also say that as someone who is either a trotskyist or at least moves in trotskyist circles, Corbyn should have recognized the origins of the imagery in the mural.