Slashdot Mirror
John Kasich To Drop Out, Leaving Trump as GOP Nominee (vox.com)
Multiple outlets are reporting that Ohio Gov. John Kasich plans to suspend his run to be the GOP presidential nominee. The move, if happens, would make Donald Trump the presumptive nominee for the GOP. The report comes hours after Kasich abruptly cancelled a planned press conference (could be paywalled; alternate source) in Virginia on Wednesday morning. LA Times reports: Kasich, the Ohio governor, had pledged to continue campaigning as a Trump alternative who could deny the billionaire needed delegates. But on Wednesday, he canceled a news conference in Washington and planned an announcement for later in the day in Columbus, Ohio, to drop out. Vox has more details.
No way Trump beats her in the general election. The polls make that pretty clear.
How is this news for nerds, stuff that matters?
Enjoy!
Cruz dropping out handed the race over.
Kasich could have won every delegate from Tuesday night to convention time and still would not have caught Trump. How he could have gotten any at all much less all of them, when he has no cash and won only his home state is a great question. Other than symbolically not causing a ruckus up to the convention, it means nothing to the race.
you'd better get used to living on the wrong side of a wall that was constructed out of policial vanity.
Just like East Germany....
Trumps lasting legacy - as seen from space (no, not his comb over)
And to linking to an alternate source. Kudos to the editors.
John Kasich has quit.
I guess the question now is whether Trump will be willing to tone down the rhetoric, make some comprehensive, real-world arguments on important stuff like foreign policy, and basically be more presidential. Also, he'll have to pick an amazing VP candidate and show himself as open to selecting people who can fill in the experience gaps he has.
Like her or hate her, Clinton was the Secretary of State. Anyone actually watching the political side of this (debates, etc.) and not voting based on stump speeches and commercials can see there's an experience gap, and I think that'll be clear in a general election debate unless Trump does some serious studying between now and then.
All in all, a fun political season is coming. You've got the establishment that wants things as-is, angry workers who have no jobs because they've been offshored, outsourced or automated, angry conservatives who want smaller government, and angry liberals from the Sanders camp who want more. Personally, I'd be amazed if Trump could pull off a trade war with the rest of the world. Coming from the Rust Belt, it would be great to see factories running 3 shifts of thousands of workers again, but I doubt that can be pulled off.
We are now one step closer to the future prophesied by Judge in the Book of Idiocracy. Exciting times.
He and Bernie Sanders are the only ones even CLAIMING they'll take on H1-B's, outsourcing, and big business. Is it likely that Trump will actually follow through with this? Nope. Is it likely that he's going to represent the same interests of his rich business friends just like ever other politician? Yep.
But is there any other choice that's even POSSIBLY going to stand up for the little guy? Not on the Republican side.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You're our only hope.
Too bad his chances at this point aren't much bigger than a womp rat.
Seriously, picture the old Uncle Sam character — wearing tall head, the blue jacket and striped pants. Now try to imagine other contenders — from both major parties — in the outfit.
Trump is the only one, who can possibly fit. There is even a red-haired variant, if you must quibble...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
ANATOMY OF FASCISM - Robert Paxton
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
The Five Stages of Fascism
1) Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
2) Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3) Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
4) Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5) Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.
You can read the full thing here
https://libcom.org/files/Rober...
It's rather ironic that I am currently reading Turtledove's Southern Victory series and I am currently on the book Blood and Iron that deals in part on the rise of the Freedom Party in the South. I feel almost like I am watching a true life version of the Freedom Party rise to power with Trump. A populist candidate spewing hatred in order to rile up an angry, frustrated, and poorly educated support base tends to not end very well.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This just supports the theory Kasich was in it only to suck off some points from the other candidates like Cruz, in exchange for a vp position from Trump. All the Rubio-Kasich deal was BS all along.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
She has no path to victory vs Trump.
Bernie does.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'd laugh so hard if Trump drops out too, right before the official nomination.
when he said he had the shit on Kat$hit. Sanders proves his leadership again.
Look for a 3rd/4th party candidate or two to be the real spoiler this election cycle. They could split the vote on the left or the right and make literally anything happen.
What if a real right wing, but non-Republican party candidate shows up?
What if some sort of middle of the road of left wing candidate shows up that can't be called "Mrs Underwood" by Trump?
Could the Greens, the Libertarians, America's party or any of a number of others become the rally point for those that feel rejected by the main parties when they select their candidates.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2016 Turd Sandwich!
[That song that says "Y'all Ready for This?" plays.]
I just hope Trump doesn't now announce Cruz or Fiorina as his running mate.
what if no one get's 270?
Please be courteous and turn the lights out.
our new fascist overlord, Donald Trump! Make America great again!
It is crazy I know, but would you put it past Trump?
You don't seem to know how pardons work. She doesn't have to plead guilty; Nixon for example was pardoned without ever having been charged. Accepting a pardon, however, is an admission of guilt. There would be no faster way to lose an election. Republicans would be calling for her head on a plate before the ink on the signature dried.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Blago got 14 years for doing nothing and Hillary get's off?
He better get a pardon or have some real dirt on somebody
Does this mean that there will be no contested republican convention ?
Man, this is infinitely more entertaining than reality shows. Thanks Trump.
Kasich was the least insane of the GOP candidates. But insane just the same.
You really have a problem when a political party cannot produce one, just one viable candidate.
> (I bet Trump would hire a dude off the street with no experience but yuuuge hair for CEO in a second)
Trump says some really stupid things. On the other hand, he hires really good people, people like Steve Wynn. I could easily list ten things about Trump that worry me, but "hires idiots" certainly wouldn't be on that list.
I HOPE that he says the things he does for the same reason that Hillary does - because those comments poll well with the voters he's targeting. The guy does know something about marketing. I hope he's smarter than his more outrageous comments make him appear.
Just no way. She has promised to continue the failed antics of the current administration.
I am also old fashioned and don't apologize for it. I will never vote for a woman, as I believe in patriarchal leadership. I also won't vote for a candidate that is as obviously dirty as Hillary. Trump isn't perfect. Far from it, but despite his flaws, he's better.
I dislike the homosexual agenda, the feminist agenda, the diversity agenda. Hire people based on merit alone, no other criteria. I dislike the left's constant push for diversity, even if it means putting people in positions they either don't deserve or have zero skills matching the actual job requirements.
I make no apology for not endorsing a candidate who is all about furthering the leftist agenda. I miss the 70s, when men were men, women were women, homosexuals either kept in the closet or lived in known homosexual enclaves. I miss when tranvestites were shamed into submission, because you are born a man or woman. Full stop. Let's stop forcing people to play along with what you identify as. I identify as a rich, white, private-island-owning software magnate with a harem of gorgeous Scandinavian women, an Indonesian cook, a Filipina maid, but that's not reality, so I don't actually pursue it.
I'm voting Trump, not because he's my pick, but because he's a better candidate than Hillary. Where are the Eisenhowers? The Pattons? The men who could get something done, throwing political correctness to the dogs, where it belongs.
"He'll sit here, and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Donald - it won't be a bit like his corporation. He'll find it very frustrating."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
At the end of the day they all work for the federal government so they all play for the same team. Like the good cops looking the other way for the bad cops.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
not voting for trump and getting hillary, or voting for trump and getting trump?
lose != loose
Indeed. But also entirely predictable - look at how things have turned out for recent, more typical GOP candidates. McCain and Romney were exactly the sorts of candidates we might expect the GOP to field, and they ended up not only losing, but being demonized by their own party. If you were the a reasonable, conservative leaning guy with some relevant experience - the next McCain or Romney - why would you step up right now? 2/3rds of your own party hates you because you won't accept all of their conservative purity vows - and you're still too far right to have any hope in a general.
So of course they aren't getting good candidates.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Quitters never win,
WINNERS never quit
TRUMP 2016
John Kasich had about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as I do...which is to say zero chance. The fact that he even remained in this long is a testament to the mans ego more than anything else. What exactly was he hoping to accomplish? Was he hoping for a contested convention where somehow he was going to emerge the winner, despite the fact that he has won a grand total of one state so far (his home state)? Was his goal simply to block Trump? Or maybe emerge as the VP on the ticket?
Well it looks like all of those things have backfired. Time to go back to Ohio.
Good relations with the republicans, I have.
Build it wider build it taller make um pay for it.
Trump will pour water on the witch wait and see.
The entire rust belt would like Jobs back.
Ideology is fine but sometimes you have to suck it up and do what is right for your country.
In a choice between Trump and Hillary I find it easier to choose Trump
What have we to show for Dems last 8 years fag butt fucking legal.
Russia playing games with the Navy because were cowards to do anything.
No we need a new direction.
#Vets4Trump
Maybe the answer is for the Republican party to split. You cannot have moderates and ultra right wingers under the same party. Especially when it's the ultra right winger that call all the shots. The Republican party doesn't have any kind of moderate candidate. What few "moderate" republicans of yore there are are a species that is going extinct.
There are some sane republicans, they're just ostricized by their own party (being a moderate republican is like being an homosexual in the 1970s). At a certain moment you have to confront reality, and if genuine republicans want a future they either ned to stage a coup and evict all the crazies from the party or they say goodbye to the GOP and found a new moderate conservative republican party. A schism in the GOP has become a political necessity
... Money Can Buy
The only surprise now will be who they choose as running mates. And the real payoff will be when Democrats regain the majority in the Senate, and Hillary submits her far-left nominee for the SCOTUS. I'd just love to see the look on McConnell's face when that happens!
Hillary should get Colin Powell, at least for her first term. :)
We've known since at least the 1700s that first-past-the-post plurality voting is a totally broken system. It's irresponsible to conduct any election with more than two alternatives in this fashion.
In many places, especially early in the election cycle, Trump would have lost any single head-to-head matchup. But his opponents were always split, and plurality voting is tremendously vulnerable to this kind of problem.
Process matters. If our elections were conducted using a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs, Maximum Majority, or Schulze, we would have had less irrationality and extremism from both parties throughout the years, and the existing parties would not have become so entrenched.
Here's a popular-audience explanation by a couple of Nobel winners.
Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump at 54 points to 41 points.
Honest question. I'm not sure if it's even an issue in my team versus your team politics, nor that the type of people voting for certain types of candidates has ever cared.
Karl Popper once tried to come up with an exact rule to determine what a scientific discipline is.
For example, astrology is based on mathematics. Should that be considered a science?
In regards to social and political theories, he noted that the Communist revolution was predicted to start in a highly industrialized country and England was held the likely starting spot. This was thought to be all kinds of scientific, and made historical predictions from rationalization over observations of the social, political, economic scenes at the time.
It was literally, at the time, felt that future predictions from historical precedent was a science.
When it actually happened in Russia (a rural, pastoral, mostly rustic country) the historical scientists of the time had to change their assumptions. The end result was still Communism, but the extra data from Russia allowed for the revolution to start in rural countries as well.
Popper didn't think that this was proper science.
And neither do I.
You can't just cherry-pick historical precedent and think it has any predictive power on the future.
Our situation is absolutely, completely not the same as the ones Robert Paxton has written about.
For one, he is cherry picking his examples. It's an obvious psychological trick - most people can't come up with counter-examples on their own, so his position *seems* like it's always the case and is inevitable.
For two, he's a popular writer, and is encouraged to make things seem just a bit more lurid to make his works more popular. (Not by lying, but he can choose which examples and situations he uses.)
For three, he notes specifically that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all 5 stages. Among the hundred-or-so counter examples for which we have good information.
And finally, there are stark differences between Trump and, for example Hitler (source):
.) Hitler wanted to conquer other countries. Trump is opposed to war unless for defense. .) Hitler tried to exterminate minorities. Trump’s policies lean pro-minority:
1. Veterans are disproportionately minorities.
2. Aborted babies are often minorities.
3. Trump wants to avoid people “dying in the streets” with no healthcare, and that benefit is good for minorities.
4. Trump wants to keep Social Security strong, which helps everyone, but mostly people at lower incomes.
5. Trump’s spokesperson is half African-American. Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism. And so on, and so on.
6. Stopping illegal immigration reduces job competition for lower-income families.
7.. Some say it also reduces violence to women of all ethnicities.
7. Trump wants citizens to be armed. Hitler didn’t want that.
Unlike Hitler, Trump is happy to invite anyone with useful technical skills to the country, no matter their ethnicity. And unlike Hitler, Trump has never made reference to ethnicity. Trump often mentions countries of origin and also religion. But so far, not ethnicity. Not ever.
And for a bit of icing, note that we live in a world of communication where it is infinitely more difficult for propaganda to thrive. That's a yuuuuge difference right there!
Stop treating history as a science, 'cause it aint.
One thing a lot of people are missing is that Trump's trade-war-mongering plays pretty darn well with one major sector of the Democratic Party's traditional base: Organized labor.
Which do I choose, Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil? I think I'll probably be voting Whig. Maybe Libertarian, if they've retreated a bit from the fever swamps they were in years ago when I took them off my "A Plague on Both Your Parties Vote" list.
the pope has spoken
The constitution has this little clause called ex post facto. Look it up.
Actually look at the last sentence, the one you deleted, I restored it for your convenience. Its not ex post facto if its 'born' classified. One example of 'born' classified is info from a private conversation with a head of state or ambassador. As Secretary of State Clinton was explicitly trained on what sort of info is 'born' classified and that any lack of markings on classified material does not change its status. Explicitly trained on this!
Yeah, how did that impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying to congress about a blow job work out for you, anti-Clinton partisans?
The impeachment was about lying in court, to a judge, while under oath; not about lying to congress. Clinton surrendered his license to practice law as part of the plea agreement.
oooohhhhhh man, come on Florida!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Cruz and Kasich (and the others while they were still in) were playing iterative rounds of something resembling the Prisoner's Dilemma. Choosing to stay in the race increased their odds of being the nominee by a large factor _if_ there was a contested convention. However staying in the race, and thus dividing the non-Trump votes, also increased the odds that Trump would win outright and there _wouldn't_ be a contested convention.
If one of them had decided to drop out much earlier the other one might have been able to stop Trump from getting enough votes to lock in the nomination and steal it away from him at the convention. (This makes it slightly different from regular Prisoner's Dilemma in that cooperating involves the two players choosing different actions.) Given that going by the number of delegates the one who probably should have dropped out early was Kasich, it's kind of pathetic that he drug his heels long enough to quit _right_ after Cruz. Good job you two! Your arrogant electoral mutual suicide pact has all but guaranteed a Trump nomination!
(I wonder if there were any backroom negotiations going on to try and convince Kasich to drop out in exchange for a vice presidential slot? That's not something that's usually done but this was a pretty unusual case.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
C'mon, surely evil aliens and mind control is the only rational explanation for the current state of affairs.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
The Beginning Of The End.
I'm going to make a comment and my comment will be so great, unlike those other comments which are awful. When you see my comment you'll know how great it is, it'll be so great that you'll actually get tired of how great it is. And my comment will win. It'll win and win and win. It'll win so much you'll get tired of it winning, that's how much it'll win and how great it will be. And no one else will have comments as great as my, I guarantee it, there is no problem with my comments, everyone knows that and they agree that my comments are great. I'll build a wall around my comments and I'll make Slashdot pay for it, you'll see. And it'll be a great comment, a beautiful comment, a comment like no other comment before it. And there will be a Reply button in my comment, a big, beautiful Reply button. And those who want to reply can do so after they've been vetted. Nobody builds Reply buttons like me. Trust me, my comment will be great and it will win.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Apparently there was no way he'd get to be the Republican candidate...
One has to conclude that "No way" is one of these terms that has a flexible meaning.
Donald Trump is going to crush Crooked Hilary. Beyond the criminal conduct related to State Dept. e-mails, she has such a record of corruption, accepting bribes from the banking industry, multinational corporations, war profiteers, foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, etc.. She is about as disgusting, gross,and corrupt as possibly imaginable. She does nothing but lie methodically every time she speaks. There is not an honest bone in her body.
This race is about truth vs. the oligarchy and its lies. Donald Trump is a revolution the likes of which has not happened in American politics for over a century.
However, he might pardon her if he expected the same favor in return. Food for thought.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Supreme court has made the ex post facto clause toothless. Means nothing.
Pretty much like the rest of the constitution.
My only question is, should I write in "Bernard Sanders" or "Bernie Sanders" on my ballot?
But was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
Do you think the American people would elect someone to the Presidency who had admitted to a felony?
A pardon is an admission of guilt, per Burdick v. United States. Not only does your scenario require a great deal of corruption and malfeasance from both parties, but also the collaboration of the American people in electing a known felon. Are you going to vote for Clinton if she accepts a pardon?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
When it was obvious that John Kasich had no chance, he should have gone back to Ohio to do his job as governor.
By staying in the race, he was putting himself ahead of his state.
That says a lot about him.
George Vreeland Hill
Now if only we can get Trump and Clinton to drop out . . .
It's even worse when both can't.
Use the Fa(rts|rce), Berne? :-P
If that person offers them the benefits they want and has the right ideology, enough of them will.
The race for President is now between Bernie and H, either of them will wipe The Donald.
They ought to just close down the Republican Party and hand any assets back to the local community center.
I'm voting third party this election.
Trump: Businessman with lots of experience building things and buying politicians, but no experience running a political institution.
Clinton: MARRIED to a governor-turned president, then GIVEN an uncontested senate seat her party had been holding for JFK jr, then APPOINTED to SecState, but with no accomplishments in the Senate, and a bad record running the State Dept.
For those who assert that Hillary is soooper qualified to be President, I have a simple question: Is Buzz Aldrin's wife qualified to land on the moon? Put another way: Would you let Dr Ben Carson's wife operate on your child's brain?
The general election this year is likely to be the dirtiest in recent history. The Clinton machine has always been ruthless, and it's finally up against somebody in Trump who may be equally ruthless. The entire nation will need a good hot shower in mid-November to eliminate the stench.
If, as seems likely, Bernie fails to stop Hillary and if the FBI does not recommend prosecution of Hillary, then this year will be the test of the election many on both the left and the right have long claimed they wanted: An outsider non-politician against the ultimate bought-and-paid-for Wall Street banker puppet insider. People are free to vote whichever way, but their choice will expose the thruthiness of their pro/anti "special interest" and "big money in politics" insider/outsider "embrace the machine"/"overthrow the machine" rhetoric.
*This* is what shilling looks like to you? A post referring to a couple of interesting articles in a magazine? Darlink, if I were going to shill, I'd do so a mite more effectively than that...but don't worry, the articles aren't really intended for people like you anyway. They're for people capable of rational thought and with a passing interest in science and logic
Tell you what, if you really believe that, find me any instance where a felon has been elected to any federal office or state governor or lieutenant governor. And then we'll weigh that against the far longer list of people for whom conviction instantly ended their political careers.
It is not to your credit that you are willing to believe that your political opposites are so venal as to vote for an ideological proponent no matter what their criminal background. Most people aren't going to let their political opinions overrule their basic morality sensibility, and there is no more universally despised class in this country than felons. There is no rational basis for your assertion.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Remember, these are the same people who want felons to vote. You might also heed the popularity of this man. If anyone cared about moral rectitude, certain candidates -- from both sides -- would have been off the menu already. Audiences change. The people of the 1950s for whom these mild sins would be a deal-killer are no longer with us. The current audience is much more polarized and ideological.
Repeating your assertion is not equivalent to substantiating it. Find me an example of any felon being elected to federal office, or state executive office. Find me any poll which suggests that it's a remotely plausible situation. Then you can work on explaining why every other person on the previously-linked list had their career ended by their convictions, regardless of political stripe, whether they were pardoned, or what year this took place. If you cannot show strong evidence to support your prejudices, I'll thank you not to continue repeating them.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I would like to see Bernie get the nod.
But if he doesn't and my choices are between a selfish fascist and a selfish fascist that continues to advocate gutting the constitution, I'm voting for Trump.
-Anon Coward
Now I have nobody to vote for! Because I'll be damned if I'm spending my vote on either Dumb Donald or Queen Hillary. There is NO point figuring out which is the worst of the candidates - each are equally stinky to me for different reasons. I think I'll flip a coin between the Libertarian or Green candidates.
Good day, sir.
There is no indication besides your willingness to believe evil about others that your supposition is plausible. You have presented no evidence. You've thrown out some nonsense about felons and corrupt mayors, and now some nonsense about false standards, to distract from the point that the preponderance of the evidence is very much in opposition to your claims. I am certainly willing to consider any evidence you care to make an argument for. Asking that you support your opinion with objective facts is not an undue burden.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
.... shout about it, when you've got to choose
Any way you look at it you lose..."
- Paul Simon
this drivel you quoted about the anatomy of fascism seems to describe many changings of the guard throughout history, from the french revolution, the american revolution, the irish easter rising, the events that led to the weimar republic etc.
none of them are traditionally associated with fascism.
as for the 5 stages of fascism, again, it's essentially the way any regime ascends to power and maintains it, and that includes this liberal dictatorship that we live in in the western world.
the whole trick i guess, is to use words and ideas that make you sound morally superior (,diversity, equality,,etc) even when the imposition of these concepts is done by force.
and by demonizing non-adherents.
i suppose a peculiar feature of liberal dictatorships is how effective they are at creating the illusion of a moral high horse thar every pretentious coward like you and this paxton guy is desperate to ride.