2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:22 am UTC

FIvethirtyeight's current now-cast, amazingly, shows her with a clean sweep of the East Coast.

thunk wrote:Trump thinks that he has a secret list of blue states that are apparently supposed to vote for him this year.

He says he'll win New York, and I think he may really believe it.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:22 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:So as an American following this all closely, I had not heard of this guy until you mentioned him, which means he will probably statistically do nothing for the election.


Then this one will probably damage Trump more than a new presidential candidate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?ref=politics. Then again, you can only drain so many republican voters until you're left with the core of Trump's support, which won't change its mind at all.

Essentially, these 50 people writing a letter is the result of Trump asking "why can't we nuke them?" three times over.

KnightExemplar wrote:Online supporters don't seem to care about any possible Trump mistake.


That's online for you. Discussions are usually more polarized and less well thought through online than in the physical world. You're anonymous so you can say whatever you want without having to deal with the consequences. The appearance of Trump (and several politicians in Europe) have changed that in the physical world. People are now less concerned with what happens after they shout something. In a way that's good because some real problems are being mentioned, but in a way it's also very bad. I've seen that the shouting politician in the Netherlands hasn't contributed to any solution whatsoever and the step to violence has become smaller.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:22 am UTC

There was a sort of "overhanging snowface" for a while, then one prominent Republican backer took a deep breath and announced a preference for Clinton ... and didn't get lynched in any sense for it ... and now we're seeing quite a few more prominent people putting "Right" before "Republican" and letting "holy carp this guy would be a disaster" publicly put them off supporting him.

I'd be curious to see the real results of a survey asking 1,000 people in each of 100 cities and 100 people in each of 1,000 smaller towns across the USA

a) who their personal favourite candidates are
b) how much they'd support (scale of 0 to 4 like a GPA) each of a list of proposals if it came from that candidate, with proposals from the "distinctly left-wing" to the "blatantly stolen from Hitler." The impression we get over here is that Trump supporters would be most likely to give straight 4s or 3s and 4s all the way down, no matter what the proposal said. Fight the next sub-prime mortgage problem by using Federal funds to buy 10%-30% shares of people's homes, thereby reducing their mortgage payments to manageable? Confiscate Muslim-owned businesses and auction them to Christians? Make the first $15,000 of individual income per year tax-free? Give $10,000 a year to each Purple Heart recipient? Make voting rights dependent on completion of National Service? Set standards for public transport connectivity to make car ownership unnecessary for 45% of the population? Reinstate the ban on gays serving in the military? Remove the registration and tax stamp requirements from firearm suppressors because keeping the noise down is just good manners? Make the right to keep and bear particular arms dependent on passing a competency assessment for that particular type of weapon? Put firearm safety on the school curriculum so kids who find guns know how to not shoot themselves? Lower the drinking age to 15? Ban smoking but still allow nicotine gum and patches? Ban less-than-third-generation Americans from public office? Deport all Muslims to Syria? Build medium- and long-distance cycleways, free from motor traffic, across the contiguous 48? Institute exchange programmes for 13-16-year-olds to give them a taste of other cultures and improve international relations?
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:12 pm UTC

I'll breath again after the election.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:Then this one will probably damage Trump more than a new presidential candidate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?ref=politics


Here's some more on that:

Many longtime Republican foreign policy and national security officials have issued their most vociferous repudiation of Donald Trump to date, saying the GOP presidential nominee, if elected, “would be the most reckless President in American history”.

An open letter released on Monday and signed by 50 fixtures from decades of Republican Pentagons, state departments, White Houses and treasuries rejected Trump’s “alarming ignorance” of basic international affairs, his competence at understanding US national interests and his temperament.

“From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief,” states the letter, which was first reported by the New York Times and includes several top aides from the George W Bush administration.

“Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

The former officials, many of whom are likely candidates to staff any Republican president’s administration, added that Trump “lacks the character, values, and experience” to hold the highest office in the land. It was the latest sign of traditional Republicans, usually a fractious group, striking at Trump while the nominee reels under signs of cratering poll numbers and self-inflicted political wounds.


I love Trump's counter though:

“The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place,” Trump said.

It's the "I know you are but what am I?" defence!

lol!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Online supporters don't seem to care about any possible Trump mistake.


That's online for you. Discussions are usually more polarized and less well thought through online than in the physical world. You're anonymous so you can say whatever you want without having to deal with the consequences. The appearance of Trump (and several politicians in Europe) have changed that in the physical world. People are now less concerned with what happens after they shout something. In a way that's good because some real problems are being mentioned, but in a way it's also very bad. I've seen that the shouting politician in the Netherlands hasn't contributed to any solution whatsoever and the step to violence has become smaller.


A big issue is that Trump supporters, moreso than Clinton, feel like their opinion is threatening and don't necessarily like to say they are Trump supporters in the real world. Yeah yeah, I know about people turning out in rallies. But I'm talking about the people I've personally met. Politics is always a subject where its a bit hard to extract people's opinions, but even more so to find a Trump supporter willing to admit it.

I'd expect people to be more honest about their support on the internet, even if things become more polarizing.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:21 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:On Dutch media, I read about a Evan McMullin who would run as an independent and the media concluded "this will cost Trump votes", as well as that this can be the the little bit that will cost Trump the election, like Gore lost in 2000.

Now, two questions:
1) Wouldn't Hillary also lose potential voters here? People who wouldn't vote for Trump may vote for Hillary and now that is (a bit) cancelled out. Similarly, can it happen that Hillary loses some of the voters she would otherwise keep?
2) Doesn't Gary Johnson already do this? And again, is he doing it to both parties?

The Dutch media focus completely on the Republicans and the Democrats, as the US media (?) do, but it's a bit disappointing that they're not even considering the existence of Johnson in The Netherlands.


I don't know who this person is. I have to imagine that his relevance in terms of votes is vanishingly small. In any case, it's too late to even get on the ballot for many states, if memory serves. Sure, sure, you can run a write in campaign. Many people do every election. They're irrelevant.

I think Johnson's share of the vote is currently still overrated, and will sink significantly by election time.

KnightExemplar wrote:


That's pretty strong. Its a bit early to see if its just a convention bump or not.

I'd have to do some polling amongst the Trump supporters I know. The big thing that caught my Mom recently was the Trump / Paul Ryan thingy (a totally unnecessary fight for Trump. Trump just doesn't know which fights to pick... so Trump picks all the fights and hopes it works out). Gonna have to find other Trump supporters I knew and ask them if anything changed their opinion recently.

Online supporters don't seem to care about any possible Trump mistake.


Definitely his weakness. He doesn't know how to lose, or let things go, or avoid conflict. Yeah, it may not show up in comments on the internet, but those are MOSTLY garbage. Lots of people don't engage in those, but do vote.

thunk wrote:Trump thinks that he has a secret list of blue states that are apparently supposed to vote for him this year.


He *could* have done well in certain blue states. Jersey/NY, maybe. But he has to get his general approval level up for that to really matter. Sure, he's got local ties and what not, but that's not enough to swing those in the face of widespread dislike. Now, it's still early in the race, and many things can shift around, but at a minimum, his belief is...wildly premature. He just doesn't have anything like the support to put them in play yet. If that's actually what he's relying on, holy crap is that a bad idea.

Edit: Yeah, I suspect that people do indeed self-censor their support for Trump somewhat, and that may skew polling slightly, but this effect probably still existed a couple of weeks ago. So, regardless of what the baseline was, the polls are indicating a big swing for Clinton.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby HES » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Now, it's still early in the race

Ugh. It's what, another three months that we have to put up with this?
He/Him/His Image

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: Yeah, I suspect that people do indeed self-censor their support for Trump somewhat, and that may skew polling slightly, but this effect probably still existed a couple of weeks ago. So, regardless of what the baseline was, the polls are indicating a big swing for Clinton.
I'd like to believe, but....Image

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

Polling was garbage back then though.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: Yeah, I suspect that people do indeed self-censor their support for Trump somewhat, and that may skew polling slightly, but this effect probably still existed a couple of weeks ago. So, regardless of what the baseline was, the polls are indicating a big swing for Clinton.
I'd like to believe, but....Image

That's a terrible example. That pollster wasn't accounting for the demographics shift of their sample. They sample wasn't representative of the population at all. A bigger issue would be asking the margins, a la brexit vote where the adjustments to the weighting of groups of people were wrong. Or that pollsters are herding because they want to follow the majority. If you're going to play the skewed polls line, at least use the right attack. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ing-badly/

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

The "polls are skewed" thing comes up constantly, yes. I note that it is almost invariably brought up by the losing side when polls show them losing. It's a...very convenient argument. It's as if they believe denying reality will change it, somehow.

Yeah, polls are imperfect, but they're still really useful. If Clinton's polls jumped strongly in a wide variety of polls across a large area in a short time, well...SOMETHING changed. And that something is probably not good news for Trump. We can discuss the details, and sure, maybe polls are overrepresenting this or that, and we can get a better understanding, but it's not plausible that Trump is doing as well as he was before the shift.

Denying that won't actually help him or his team, it'll just mean they likely keep pursuing a losing strategy longer. Disdain for math is a mug's game.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

Polls are useful, but will continue to be inaccurate until the official poll (ie: the election). See Brexit as a very recent example.

The main issue with polls is that the modern voter is connected and is aware of polling. A super-large swing in favor of Clinton will make a significant number of people in this very topic vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson as a "protest vote".

Polling affects the election. Its sorta-this Heisenberg uncertainty principle thingy. As you conduct polls, the general public's strategy will shift. #Brexit was polling behind of #BRemain, so people felt like casting the "protest vote" to make it a closer race. Unfortunately for those few, they suffered #Bregret.

Similarly, the further-and-further Clinton pulls ahead, the more people will vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Few people are actually "approving" of Clinton, they are just scared of Trump and prefer the less evil alternative.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

That wasn't a statement about polling. That was a statement about taking anything seriously this early that polls say. Even 538 says that early polls like these may not reflect what happens in November. Clinton could stumble, more emails may surface, anything can happen.
Trump wrote: “The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place,” Trump said.
Consider that we have been involved in two wars which still are ongoing, and policy making by both parties that have legitimized both torture and murder by remote control. And the government mandates who they must associate with, up to and including in their bathrooms. There is an element of truth to the statement, for Americans who believe they are losing their grip on the world. And all of this makes it much easier for Trump to say the things he does.

Add to that big business and trade agreements that a lot of voters see as a bad thing. American corporations have more money in banks overseas than some countries. People see news that individuals are losing good jobs to outsourcing by foreign workers and are wondering where all the money is. Not to mention the loss of high paying jobs in manufacturing that no longer exist. As a result the backlash has become great enough that both parties are walking back from Trade agreements. TAPP may be dead.

Trump hasn't done anything to them, yet. And remember the tagline from Trump's reality show. What was it? "Your fired!" Its kind of like Network, when Beale goes, "I'm as mad as hell,. and I'm not going to take this anymore!!" It really isn't rational, and in any prior elections Trump could never have been nominated.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Consider that we have been involved in two wars which still are ongoing, and policy making by both parties that have legitimized both torture and murder by remote control. And the government mandates who they must associate with, up to and including in their bathrooms. There is an element of truth to the statement, for Americans who believe they are losing their grip on the world.

There are a few problems with that.

First, even if what you say is true, why is it that this bunch of people (who just happen to oppose Trump) that happen to be the people at fault..?

Secondly, perhaps you're not aware but Trump is more in favour of torture and drone strikes than previous administrations, not less. He thinks that the law should be changed to allow much worse than mere waterboarding. He claims that he 'loves waterboarding' and that 'we are living in medieval times'...

But, overall, these are basically civil servants following policy set by and answerable to the administration. While it'd be silly to say they carry no responsibility at all, they can hardly be held responsible for, say, the two ongoing wars you speak of. Those were decisions way above their pay grade.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Consider that we have been involved in two wars which still are ongoing, and policy making by both parties that have legitimized both torture and murder by remote control. And the government mandates who they must associate with, up to and including in their bathrooms. There is an element of truth to the statement, for Americans who believe they are losing their grip on the world.

There are a few problems with that.

First, even if what you say is true, why is it that this bunch of people (who just happen to oppose Trump) that happen to be the people at fault..?


Morris did say "by both parties", which seems quite fair. He's not blaming JUST the democrats or anti-Trumpers.

Secondly, perhaps you're not aware but Trump is more in favour of torture and drone strikes than previous administrations, not less. He thinks that the law should be changed to allow much worse than mere waterboarding. He claims that he 'loves waterboarding' and that 'we are living in medieval times'...

But, overall, these are basically civil servants following policy set by and answerable to the administration. While it'd be silly to say they carry no responsibility at all, they can hardly be held responsible for, say, the two ongoing wars you speak of. Those were decisions way above their pay grade.


Oh, sure. Trump is not a solution to...much of anything, really. He will say literally whatever he thinks will get him votes, contradict himself constantly, and pick fights with anyone who calls him out on it.

But he is still in the running because of the mistakes of the two parties. Nobody can reasonably hold him or Hillary up as the best choices to lead the country. In short, voters are very, very disappointed in the establishment, and they're flailing about. Trump happened to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from these circumstances.

And those folks basically do represent the establishment. They may not have made choices like invading Iraq, but they probably supported those decisions. A certain degree of responsibility is fair, even if Trump is more reflexively attacking than making a logical case. The fact that Trump is awful doesn't negate the real problems that the establishment has had.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby thunk » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:06 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If that's actually what he's relying on, holy crap is that a bad idea.

And you'd be right.
Now, winning some of the Rust Belt might be reasonable if he could have kept his margins up among uneducated white people, but he isn't even doing that--instead doing worse than Romney among the group.

HES wrote:Ugh. It's what, another three months that we have to put up with this?

Tell me about it.

Also, keep in mind that ~85% chance of Clinton victory isn't a certainty. As the Upshot says, that's about the chance an NFL kicker will make an average field goal. It's a bit premature to be calling the election right now.

Democrats are also up by 8 points in the generic Congressional ballot--an advantage of 4 points will cause the Dems to break even, because of gerrymandering.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

elasto wrote:First, even if what you say is true, why is it that this bunch of people (who just happen to oppose Trump) that happen to be the people at fault..?
I don't know that they are. But they are the people who make it their business to advise on policy, or else what are their bona fides and why should anyone listen? However they don't have to be, to be tarred with that brush. Trump is talking to his base.
elasto wrote:Secondly, perhaps you're not aware but Trump is more in favour of torture and drone strikes than previous administrations, not less. He thinks that the law should be changed to allow much worse than mere waterboarding. He claims that he 'loves waterboarding' and that 'we are living in medieval times'...
Yes, and as I pointed out, had they not done so, what Trump is saying would be less palatable.
elasto wrote:But, overall, these are basically civil servants following policy set by and answerable to the administration. While it'd be silly to say they carry no responsibility at all, they can hardly be held responsible for, say, the two ongoing wars you speak of. Those were decisions way above their pay grade.
Your thinking of it rationally, I'm pointing out that they(Trump's base) aren't. But in either case, no President cant make an informed decision without the benefit of advisors, the questions are too complex. Everybody can have an opinion, but not everybody can have an informed one. So this group of men help inform the leaders we elect. Presidents and Congress may choose to act with their advice or against it. But John Doe sees them as a group of knuckleheads in an alliance with the devil. I suppose it will be fruitless to point this out, but the public at large isn't really geared to deal with complex ideas or arguments. They want simple solutions. Listen to the way Trump talks. They don't realize that they may not be able to have what they want.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Morris did say "by both parties", which seems quite fair. He's not blaming JUST the democrats or anti-Trumpers.

I have no doubt Morris is even-handed in his blame. It's Trump who I was saying was not. Somehow magically it's these particular folk (who happen to be anti-Trumpers) who are uniquely at fault - remember, he thanks them for naming and shaming themselves to the world...

And those folks basically do represent the establishment. They may not have made choices like invading Iraq, but they probably supported those decisions.

Why do you say that? The job of a civil servant is to obey his democratically elected leaders. It's like claiming that rank-and-file soldiers are in favour of invasions when really they just go where they are sent.

I mean, in some ways it'd be a better world if civil servants and the military routinely picked and chose which orders to obey and which not to, but it'd also be the road to anarchy.

Morris wrote:But in either case, no President cant make an informed decision without the benefit of advisors, the questions are too complex. Everybody can have an opinion, but not everybody can have an informed one.

I reeeally don't think the power dynamic works that way round.

Take, for example, drugs policy. Almost every expert agrees the war on drugs has been a horrendous failure and waste of money. The only reason for it continuing is political - because it's a vote-loser to appear 'weak' on drugs or crime.

Advisers advise the least-worst way to carry out a political policy, which they might as easily disagree with as agree. They don't direct high-level ideological decisions like 'invade Iraq'...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
And those folks basically do represent the establishment. They may not have made choices like invading Iraq, but they probably supported those decisions.

Why do you say that? The job of a civil servant is to obey his democratically elected leaders. It's like claiming that rank-and-file soldiers are in favour of invasions when really they just go where they are sent.

I mean, in some ways it'd be a better world if civil servants and the military routinely picked and chose which orders to obey and which not to, but it'd also be the road to anarchy.


We're not focused on "fifty civil servants", but on "fifty GOP leaders". Politics. They can endorse courses of action or protest them, as they are doing to Trump right now.

Why this outburst against Trump, and not, say, Dubya? Is it because Bush's policies and decisions were flawless? That's...a hard sell in some cases.

Advisers advise the least-worst way to carry out a political policy, which they might as easily disagree with as agree. They don't direct high-level ideological decisions like 'invade Iraq'...


Direct, no. Influence, yes.

An underling would have to be pretty dumb not to realize that slanting advice a given way could affect policy decisions. The president is the guy in charge, sure, but folks at the cabinet level do, in practice, wield a large amount of power.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The president is the guy in charge, sure, but folks at the cabinet level do, in practice, wield a large amount of power.
A large amount of power multiplied by a factor less than one, which is proportional to how much he listens, to how much he understands and to how many hoots he gives what they think.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

So, you don't think it's fair to assign even partial blame to ANYONE else in the GOP for supporting Bush, even when you disagree with Bush's decisions?

Because if you're gonna let the cabinet level off the hook, obviously the folks underneath bear less responsibility, right? Someone actually DOING torture is just following orders, then?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

Hardly, but an adviser whose advice was totally ignored despite his or her best efforts shouldn't be blamed for the soldiers unknowingly following the illegal orders knowingly passed down by their officer when the C-in-C who ignored the advice makes a stupid decision.

There's another way up to look at this, you know. Da'esh are the guys so extreme even al-Qa'eda said: "Whoa! TOO far!" Trump's the guy so extreme even Dubya's advisers said: "Whoa! TOO stupid, aggressive, egotistical, ignorant, irresponsible, irrational, easily provoked, obnoxious, offensive, racist, clueless and all-round shit!"

Alternatively, I suppose you could exonerate Dubya entirely, blame everything on Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and a lot of corrupt advisers in the pockets of (their) big business and say that the advisers don't like Trump because he won't let them use him as a puppet the way Dubya did ...

... so the disasters Trump will bring about could reduce their share prices.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Nobody is trying to exonerate Bush completely.

Not in this thread, and I highly doubt Trump put that much thought into it either. It's merely observing that, technically Trump is correct in observing that they had a hand in creating many of the party's* problems, or at least, in supporting the creation of those problems.

*Or the US's problems, whichever.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:50 pm UTC

The only person blaming that group is Trump. The technique employed by Trump is called the Big Lie. And as I have said twice, the truth of the matter has nothing to do with it. All any of us know about the decisions made, was what got printed in the paper, so to speak.
elasto wrote:Advisers advise the least-worst way to carry out a political policy, which they might as easily disagree with as agree. They don't direct high-level ideological decisions like 'invade Iraq'...
I'm not sure what to say to that. Consider John Yoo,
The Torture Memos is a term originally applying to a set of legal memoranda drafted by John Yoo as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States and signed in August 2002 by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, head of the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the president on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques: mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding, and stated that such acts, widely regarded as torture, might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of presidential authority during the "War on Terror".
I think it is fair to assign some measure of culpability to John Yoo. He didn't make the decision but he sure as hell enabled it. But that wasn't what I intended in my post.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:02 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4 Trump suggest the second amendment folks could do something if Hillary gets to pick her judges…

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4 Trump suggest the second amendment folks could do something if Hillary gets to pick her judges…


They totally should take over a federal building so that the internet can send them dildos.

2nd Amendment nuts are nutty, but for the most part they aren't murderous assholes. (Charleston being a notable exception... but such events are extremely rare) I wouldn't worry about it too much.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

The problem is that these people have to be nonexistent instead of rare.

You only need one nutter to ruin it for everyone. I think people sometimes get away with their words too easily. You say something ludicrous and then you say "Oh I don't mean it this way, I mean it that way, you don't understand" and then everyone moves on with their lives.

No. If you say something that someone else picks up as a call for violence and then acts like that, you've been spreading violence. In these cases, it doesn't matter how many people understand that actually shooting someone is not done, if there is one who doesn't understand that, you have a problem.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:43 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:The problem is that these people have to be nonexistent instead of rare.

You only need one nutter to ruin it for everyone. I think people sometimes get away with their words too easily. You say something ludicrous and then you say "Oh I don't mean it this way, I mean it that way, you don't understand" and then everyone moves on with their lives.

No. If you say something that someone else picks up as a call for violence and then acts like that, you've been spreading violence. In these cases, it doesn't matter how many people understand that actually shooting someone is not done, if there is one who doesn't understand that, you have a problem.


Trump has gotten this far because of a huge number of people who see this as an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Political korrectness is ruining America, apparently. (Misspelled to avoid a mod-madness filter)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:10 pm UTC

There are people in this forum who think that government shouldn't accomplish anything besides shooting and think nothing of talk de legitimizing the primary and the election. That's incredibly dangerous because democracy rests on the idea that losers accept the results of the election. What Trump is proposing is he either wins or burns down the country in protest. What's the point of the election if you aren't going to abide by it.

Now Trump apologizers go around on an apology tour saying "he didn't mean it except wink wink maybe maybe not. ", conservatives have used violent rhetoric before, with the tea party blurring the lines between incitement of violence and violent euphemism. Trump goes way way over the line. Except conservatives don't realize how over the top it is, save for the party thinkers.

Edit. The tea party went over the line but nobody cares because Trump makes them look like reasonable bleeding hearts liberals.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:41 am UTC

Hillary will get death threats if she is elected, and there will be people seriously considering assassinating her. This is true for every President. But the idea of a major Presidential candidate, whether joking or not, suggesting that their opponent be assassinated is just mind boggling. I don't know how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for this lunatic. Trump spends half his time trying to "clarify" what stupid thing he just said (in this case, Trump's campaign is saying "No, no, no, he meant that they could get out the vote to keep Hillary from getting elected" even though that is obvious bullshit), and they think this is the person who should be the figurehead of our country, meeting with world leaders?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:15 am UTC

Some men just want to watch the world burn

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:21 am UTC

You'd think the most devastating attack ad you could run on Trump would be to just replay the stupidest things he's said, with a South Park-esque "THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP REALLY BELIEVES" to emphasize the point.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DaBigCheez » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:40 am UTC

To which I suspect most Trump supporters would roll their eyes, grumble that obviously all those statements were taken out of context but what can you expect from this biased liberal media anyway, and move on without a second thought. (This effect is not unique to followers of any particular party or candidate.)
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:48 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:To which I suspect most Trump supporters would roll their eyes, grumble that obviously all those statements were taken out of context but what can you expect from this biased liberal media anyway, and move on without a second thought. (This effect is not unique to followers of any particular party or candidate.)

Nobody cares about those voters unless Trump starts inciting violence/delegitimizing the election. The people that matter are those disillusioned Republicans. We want them to stay home, or vote libertarian/Hillary. Have you noticed how Trump stopped saying openly misogynistic things? Because you can't win an election without half the electorate.* Trump's base is loyal, but even they have limits...very strange limits. Remember, people are losing support for Trump, that's why the polls are tilting towards Hillary.

I'm curious where the remaining GOP members will do after the Primaries are over. That frees them to speak their mind a bit more and argue for a split ticket vote.. Normally I'd say that a stupid strategy in the age of straight ticket voting, but Trump breaks a lot of rules, so this may not apply. Things are still murky as we're only getting National polls, we'll get the gold standard stuff in a few days, state polls.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... -firewall/

*Well you can, but it's really hard. You'd need 100% of the white vote.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:41 am UTC

Vahir wrote:You'd think the most devastating attack ad you could run on Trump would be to just replay the stupidest things he's said, with a South Park-esque "THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP REALLY BELIEVES" to emphasize the point.


Clinton is basically doing that... with advertisements during the Olympics.

Trump really thinks he can just Tweet his way to victory. Trump doesn't seem to have any Olympics ads yet. Maybe Trump doesn't think 3-months out is a good time to start the attack?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:49 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Maybe Trump doesn't think 3-months out is a good time to start the attack?
In most countries three months before elections is a very long time. My country's presidential election will be two days before US' this year and the major parties haven't even picked their candidates yet (not to mention the campaign doesn't start until after there are specific candidates to consider unlike in the US).
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:06 am UTC

I'm not sure what will make me feel better, the race tightening and making me feel like the money I donated to Hillary was actually worth it, or Hillary maintaining a clear lead going into November due to Trump's incompetence (meaning I might as well have thrown my money down the toilet).

(the race was much closer when I donated, and I was a little worried Trump could actually win at the time)
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:15 am UTC

You're not getting the money back either way, I'd be hoping Clinton maintains her clear lead and wins the general myself. Not getting your money back AND getting Trump would suck.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:20 am UTC

If it gets close enough to the point where I think the latter is a possibility, I will probably sell some of my stocks and donate up to the limit.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests