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
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

As far as I am aware, there are no sanctuary cities in NH - its really a non-issue there.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire ... n-prevent/

If there were large numbers of illegal immigrants in NH.... they'd probably move to MA, to be honest. NH simply doesn't have the infrastructure, public transit, welfare, etc. that MA does.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:... Why the obsession over Clinton's health in the first place? Does it really fucking matter? Roosevelt had Polio and served three terms in office (and had media complicity in concealing the affliction), Churchill had a chronic case of pneumonia, drank like an entire school of alcoholic fish, and lived to be 90.

I'm pretty sure that whoever gets to be the PotUS will have superior healthcare, certainly superior to what any of us peons receive, and a relatively minor case of pneumonia isn't going to be a significant hurdle to carrying out the duties of the office.

Nice Rant.
I like it.

Fact Check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_ ... velt#Polio

Fact Check Churchill?
He wasn't one of Ours.

He was one of 'Them' and 'Them' had, just, been through Hell!
He was a member of a Nation with PTS. They Drank. You'd too.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/p ... 92,00.html
well...That's a little provocative.
Spoiler:
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill's bond knew no boundaries. Once, while Churchill was staying at the White House, Roosevelt stopped by his room for a chat. The Prime Minister opened his door in the buff and said, "You see, Mr. President, I have nothing to hide from you." FDR took the flashing in jest, laughing with his aide later and saying, "He's pink and white all over."

The famous duo, who shared a mutual love of tobacco, strong drink, battleships and history, would spearhead the Allied powers' fight in World War II. During the course of the war, the pair met face to face nine times. Their mutual trust and values led to the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed the U.S. to assist its friend with weapons without formally entering the war, and the so-called Atlantic Charter, which served as the informal blueprint for the end of the war. Roosevelt wrote after one such meeting, "It is fun to be in the same decade with you."

The two remained close until FDR's death in 1945. Churchill later wrote, "I felt I was in contact with a very great man, who was also a warm-hearted friend, and the foremost champion of the high causes which we served."

I'll add it to my reading list.
http://www.historytoday.com/max-beloff/ ... ce-and-war
Spoiler:
Our idea of the wartime 'Big Three' may be derived from their photographs together at Teheran in 1943 and at Yalta in 1945; it is well to be reminded that these were the only occasions at which they met as a group. On the other hand, Churchill and Roosevelt met together on eleven occasions (including the Atlantic Conference before the US entered the war) and Churchill and Stalin on three occasions.

ok. You've been fact checked.
What were you saying?

oh, Yes.
Dauric wrote:I'm pretty sure that whoever gets to be the PotUS will have superior healthcare, certainly superior to what any of us peons receive, and a relatively minor case of pneumonia isn't going to be a significant hurdle to carrying out the duties of the office.

Yes.
Agreed.
The miracles of Modern Medicine are at their disposal.

Good Grief! Dick Chenny had a Heart Transplant.
No one ever needed a change of heart more.
Most have likely heard the broad outlines of the events that led to former Vice President Dick Cheney's heart transplant: Five heart attacks, open heart surgery and a battery-operated heart pump.

oh, Internet...i love you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli ... f15c73303e
Spoiler:
Kelly Phillips Erb , FORBES STAFF
I cover tax: paying tax is painful but reading about it shouldn't be.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Over the weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney received a new heart at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. The news raised eyebrows and questions about whether he was too old for the procedure. At age 71, Cheney was older than the average heart transplant patient; while there is no firm age limit for a heart transplant, most transplant surgeries are done on patients younger than 70 years old.

About 3,000 people in the United States are the heart transplant waiting list on any given day, although only about 2,000 donor hearts are available each year. Time spent on the waiting list does play a part in who receives a donor heart. For example, if two patients have equal need, the one who has been waiting longer will likely get the first available donor heart, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.

A heart transplant is considered a serious, life-saving surgery. In the procedure, a person’s damaged or diseased heart is replaced with a healthy heart from a deceased organ donor. Most heart transplants are done on patients who have end-stage heart failure which means that patient’s health is so severe that all treatments have failed. In Cheney’s case, he had suffered five separate heart attacks (the first at age 37) and had remained alive for the past two years or so with the use of a heart valve pump called a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD).

US Vice President Dick Cheney listens to repor...
US Vice President Dick Cheney listens to reporter’s questions as he conducts a press conference with US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and US General David Petraeus from the ‘Green Zone’ in Baghdad on March 17, 2008. Cheney affirmed today Washington’s ‘unwavering’ support for Iraq during a surprise visit to Baghdad days before the war enters its sixth year. (Image credit: AFP via @daylife)
Spoiler:
Who Lives and Who Dies...?
Who decides...

Yep. Who does.
WHO = World Health Organization.

Those people must have a Rough Job.
The well being of All of us is The Job?


(shrug) Cheney, Trump, and even Mrs. Clinton have access to the best.
I worry, a little, sometimes....

Mrs, Clinton has access to the best.
Her enemies have access to the Best Money Can Buy, too.

They predict she become ill.
Then they make their own dreams come true.

Hey! Conspiracy theories have to come from SomeWhere.
Why not here?

Trumpetts/Trumpkins have earned a reputation for being kind'a mean.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:11 am UTC

Remember how shady it was when Trump coincidentally sent his charity's money to Pam Bondi who coincidentally dropped a lawsuit, while Trump coincidentally mislabeled the donation to another unrelated group? Turns out that was the tip of the iceberg. Trump uses his foundation to pay off legal disputes and lawsuits. Remember, Trump's foundation uses 100% of other people's money, and none of his own. Charities are being used to fund Trump's legal misconduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/us/po ... itics&_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents. Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses. In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the height of a flagpole.

In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records. “I represent 700 nonprofits a year, and I’ve never encountered anything so brazen,” said Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who advises charities at the Venable law firm in Washington. After The Washington Post described the details of these Trump Foundation gifts, Tenenbaum described them as “really shocking.” “If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in awhile,” Tenenbaum said.
That's really clever, leveraging a charity to settle disputes, except it's completely illegal which is why NOBODY Does it.

For those of you who aren't sure what the crime is.
Several tax experts said that the two cases­ appeared to be clear examples of self-dealing, as defined by the tax code. The Trump Foundation had made a donation, it seemed, so that a Trump business did not have to. Rosemary E. Fei, a lawyer in San Francisco who advises nonprofit groups, said both cases­ clearly fit the definition of self-dealing. “Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity,” Fei said. “But the obligation was Trump’s. And you can’t have a charitable foundation paying off Trump’s personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing.”

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moiraemachy » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

I wonder how Hillary could capitalize on that. The "crazy bigot" angle has only strengthened his narrative so far. Maybe she could suggest he only did those fiscal maneuvers and isn't releasing his tax records because he isn't so rich, after all. Take the "successful businessman" label away from him and his campaign falls apart. There's plenty of ammo for that: Trump suing people who talk about his wealth, his failed businesses, the fact he barely funded his own campaign...

Simply accusing him of violating the law will just be answered with "ah, but the Clinton foundation also...". And let's face it: the reason rich people set up charities is to practice self-dealing. If anything, Trump was just incompetent at hiding it because he wasn't used to presidential levels of scrutiny.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.

After you have a few million dollars in toys, spending a million here or there on saving thousands of lives might, you know, feel good. Better than owning a 3rd fancy car in your garage. A charity set up as a clearing house for your donations makes lots of sense, organization wise.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.

After you have a few million dollars in toys, spending a million here or there on saving thousands of lives might, you know, feel good. Better than owning a 3rd fancy car in your garage. A charity set up as a clearing house for your donations makes lots of sense, organization wise.

First of all, this isn't Trump's money. It's other people's money who gave it thinking it was going to a charity in their own name. Trump essentially repackaged others people's good will, and slapped his gawdy name on it. Secondly, he's spending charity money to pay fines on Trump's misconduct. That doesn't match anything on your criteria for 'too much money' or the hassle. It's a scam and fraud.

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moiraemachy » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:33 am UTC

sardia, I'm pretty sure Yakk isn't disputing that Trump's case is some egregious bullshit. I was the one who suggested bullshit like that probably isn't that uncommon.

Yakk wrote:Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.
Setting up a charity is easier than writing a check? Setting a charity makes sense if you want to donate the money while still maintaining control of it. The only reason to do so is if you consider yourself an excellent manager and want to insure the money is well spent (that's probably what Hillary would claim). Or if you want to practice self dealing. I prefer to assume it's always both, in varying ratios.

Because of tax deductions, putting your name in a charity (and getting recognition for it) while also practicing a little self dealing is just the correct fiscal move. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Trump donates exactly the maximum deductible amount.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:47 am UTC

moiraemachy wrote:sardia, I'm pretty sure Yakk isn't disputing that Trump's case is some egregious bullshit. I was the one who suggested bullshit like that probably isn't that uncommon.

Yakk wrote:Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.
Setting up a charity is easier than writing a check? Setting a charity makes sense if you want to donate the money while still maintaining control of it. The only reason to do so is if you consider yourself an excellent manager and want to insure the money is well spent (that's probably what Hillary would claim). Or if you want to practice self dealing. I prefer to assume it's always both, in varying ratios.

Because of tax deductions, putting your name in a charity (and getting recognition for it) while also practicing a little self dealing is just the correct fiscal move. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Trump donates exactly the maximum deductible amount.

Trump donates $0 for the last 8 years. It's not a charity, like at all.

PS Surprise surprise, Duckshirt attempt at punditry ended poorly.
duckshirt wrote:You misunderstood my post entirely. Polls do nothing to predict where the polls will be next week. Come back in 7 days and if Trump has a small lead in the national polls, my unextraordinary first prediction was right.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... icans.html
Spoiler:
Image
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo
538 clearly shows Clinton retains her lead of roughly 2% points. Not that it means much besides showing how much duckshirt knows about election polling.
Attachments
trumpfoundationchart.gif

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:07 am UTC

Blair's recently "wound down his business empire and paid £8m to his own non-profit charitable foundation" too. I immediately assumed it was a way to pay himself the profits from the businesses without paying tax on them. I'd look the story up for you, but it'd make my skin crawl.
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.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:04 am UTC

moiraemachy wrote:sardia, I'm pretty sure Yakk isn't disputing that Trump's case is some egregious bullshit. I was the one who suggested bullshit like that probably isn't that uncommon.

"And let's face it: the reason rich people set up charities is to practice self-dealing"
You implied it was universal. I disagreed.
Yakk wrote:Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.
Setting up a charity is easier than writing a check?

It is easier than writing 300 cheques, tracking reciepts and rates and outcomes. It is easier to deduct cost of charitable management out of charitable funds if you have a charity.

You don't have the personal time to spend the effort that donating a few million dollars should go with usually. Making sure you give to "the X foundation" and not the "foundation for X" as a really simple example, when the first does great work while the second not nearly so much. Knowing which to give to so your money is effective. Avoiding scams. Keeping track of reciept amounts for tax purposes. Managing reoccuring donations. Firewalling against being spammed by solicitors.

There are lots of things to do to spend moeny effectively, even if you are giving it away.

Now you could slack. Find someone who has already done the work and piggyback. But it takes some work to find a good piggyback target and ensure they don't start to suck. And in some cases, piggybacking doesn't feel as rewarding as making the final choices yourself (even if you hire people to do the legwork).

I pigfyback, because I do not give enough to fhnd real research and management of my donations. I do refuse to impulse give, because I cannot vet a charity impulsively. If I had an app, maybe. The few times I have looked into it when tempted it hasn't looked good (vetting door-to-door charity drives, etc), other choices have seemed more efficient.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:46 am UTC

Yakk wrote:
moiraemachy wrote:sardia, I'm pretty sure Yakk isn't disputing that Trump's case is some egregious bullshit. I was the one who suggested bullshit like that probably isn't that uncommon.

"And let's face it: the reason rich people set up charities is to practice self-dealing"
You implied it was universal. I disagreed.
Yakk wrote:Maybe they set up charities because they have the power to fund worthy causes, and doing it out of your personal bank account is a hassle.
Setting up a charity is easier than writing a check?

It is easier than writing 300 cheques, tracking reciepts and rates and outcomes. It is easier to deduct cost of charitable management out of charitable funds if you have a charity.

You don't have the personal time to spend the effort that donating a few million dollars should go with usually. Making sure you give to "the X foundation" and not the "foundation for X" as a really simple example, when the first does great work while the second not nearly so much. Knowing which to give to so your money is effective. Avoiding scams. Keeping track of reciept amounts for tax purposes. Managing reoccuring donations. Firewalling against being spammed by solicitors.

There are lots of things to do to spend moeny effectively, even if you are giving it away.

Now you could slack. Find someone who has already done the work and piggyback. But it takes some work to find a good piggyback target and ensure they don't start to suck. And in some cases, piggybacking doesn't feel as rewarding as making the final choices yourself (even if you hire people to do the legwork).


If one is rich enough to be giving away millions, one would think one could hire an accountant, y'know, people who do that stuff for a living, to keep track of that sort of thing. :roll:


I mean, it implies a level of trust, but why would you hire an accountant you can't trust?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:12 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:It is easier than writing 300 cheques, tracking reciepts and rates and outcomes. It is easier to deduct cost of charitable management out of charitable funds if you have a charity.

You don't have the personal time to spend the effort that donating a few million dollars should go with usually. Making sure you give to "the X foundation" and not the "foundation for X" as a really simple example, when the first does great work while the second not nearly so much. Knowing which to give to so your money is effective. Avoiding scams. Keeping track of reciept amounts for tax purposes. Managing reoccuring donations. Firewalling against being spammed by solicitors.

There are lots of things to do to spend moeny effectively, even if you are giving it away.

Now you could slack. Find someone who has already done the work and piggyback. But it takes some work to find a good piggyback target and ensure they don't start to suck. And in some cases, piggybacking doesn't feel as rewarding as making the final choices yourself (even if you hire people to do the legwork).


If one is rich enough to be giving away millions, one would think one could hire an accountant, y'know, people who do that stuff for a living, to keep track of that sort of thing. :roll:


I mean, it implies a level of trust, but why would you hire an accountant you can't trust?[/quote]I was describing hiring an accountant. And other managers of money, and evaluators of charities.

You put the people helping manage your charitible giving within your personal charity. You give money to your charity (or foundation, or whatever structure). You still direct your charity, picking what causes to support, but you now have support doing so.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

Yak, how does this compare to Trump's usage of his 'charity'?

In other news Gary Johnson ideas would tank the economy. Is it a libertarian thing or is Gary Johnson at fault? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... eres-this/

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

First, Trump stopped giving money to his charity almost 10 years ago. He solicits donations from others, and runs it. I don't know how he gets people to donate to the Trump charity, and I choose not to speculate.

Second, Trump then uses it to settle lawsuits, each over 100k, in various businesses he owns.

Third, he purchased advertising for his businesses with money from the Charity.

Forth, he bought portraits of himself (twice) using money from the Charity.

Finally, he makes promises to give money "out of his own pocket" which he settles out of his charity (which at this point contains no money he donated; that is long spent). This included a seeming quid-pro-quo where his network gave his charity a million dollars so he could more generously announce he was giving money "out of his own pocket" on the shows he was on.

I am unaware of any similar parallels with the Clinton family charity.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

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 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:First, Trump stopped giving money to his charity almost 10 years ago. He solicits donations from others, and runs it. I don't know how he gets people to donate to the Trump charity, and I choose not to speculate.

Second, Trump then uses it to settle lawsuits, each over 100k, in various businesses he owns.

Third, he purchased advertising for his businesses with money from the Charity.

Forth, he bought portraits of himself (twice) using money from the Charity.

Finally, he makes promises to give money "out of his own pocket" which he settles out of his charity (which at this point contains no money he donated; that is long spent). This included a seeming quid-pro-quo where his network gave his charity a million dollars so he could more generously announce he was giving money "out of his own pocket" on the shows he was on.

I am unaware of any similar parallels with the Clinton family charity.


You forgot bribery (making an illegal campaign contribution to support an attorney general who then proceed to drop their investigation into Trump University).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:29 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Yak, how does this compare to Trump's usage of his 'charity'?

In other news Gary Johnson ideas would tank the economy. Is it a libertarian thing or is Gary Johnson at fault? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... eres-this/

The Washington Post blocks their articles.
The articles can be unblocked with a credit card.

Or; You might copy and paste the bits you consider important into a Spoiler.
That would allow me and others like me to read what you are posting about.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

addams wrote:The Washington Post blocks their articles.
The articles can be unblocked with a credit card.

Must be geographic, that, unless my most basic of browser settings has neutered the necessary obscuration scripts, because there was no problem here.
Spoiler:
I almost copied the article into here, myself, but it might go over 'fair use' to copy the entire text (ditto attaching the saved page I just made, though sometimes "save link" and viewing that* nullifies scripted pestering pop-overs like that, so that might work for you) and I don't know what bits Sardia would consider best as representative.


* With or without editing the .html, though in this case it only has contextless bumf and the deconstructed dynamc menu system taking up half the page as raw nested bulleted lists, pre-stylesheeting style.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:48 pm UTC

Try using Firefox's privacy mode, works for me.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

addams wrote:
sardia wrote:Yak, how does this compare to Trump's usage of his 'charity'?

In other news Gary Johnson ideas would tank the economy. Is it a libertarian thing or is Gary Johnson at fault? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... eres-this/

The Washington Post blocks their articles.
The articles can be unblocked with a credit card.

Or; You might copy and paste the bits you consider important into a Spoiler.
That would allow me and others like me to read what you are posting about.


Try opening an incognito window and paste the link into that. Or, if you have another browser that you rarely use, try pasting the link into that.

You can also try clearing the cookies and cache on your main browser; but that can be inconvenient.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby thunk » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:58 pm UTC

Trump director of African-American outreach Omarosa Manigault issues threatening statement:

Manigault wrote:“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”


...as if we didn't need any more cause for concern.

Oculus Rift founder Palmer Luckey was also exposed as funding an unofficial pro-Trump group that seeks to prove “shitposting is powerful and meme magic is real".
Several developers are now threatening to drop Oculus support from their games until Luckey resigns.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:41 am UTC

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893 ... nald-trump
Ted Cruz backs Trump. Is this Cruz seeing the writing on the wall of a Trump victory? Or is he throwing his lot in with Trump in order to support a lagging Trump?

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:19 am UTC

I liked the argument that, even if Trump crashes and burns, that Trump's voters were way too influential in the primary that Cruz is burning any chance for future PotUS runs by not backing Trump now. Especially as it's clear Trump is mostly solidifying his Republican base behind him even if he ends up losing.

Granted, who knows. I mean it seems like half the old establishment seems to be announcing publicly they're voting against Trump, hard to guess what the party is going to look like after November...

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:53 am UTC

And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:49 am UTC

sardia wrote:PS Surprise surprise, Duckshirt attempt at punditry ended poorly.
duckshirt wrote:You misunderstood my post entirely. Polls do nothing to predict where the polls will be next week. Come back in 7 days and if Trump has a small lead in the national polls, my unextraordinary first prediction was right.

It was a rough prediction that was a near miss, not something I bet the house on. He came within 0.6% at one point, and I figured there would be a flattening or small Clinton rebound after. Part of that was due to a C- rated poll that had Clinton +5.

sardia wrote:538 clearly shows Clinton retains her lead of roughly 2% points. Not that it means much besides showing how much duckshirt knows about election polling.

I know a lot about election polling actually and haven't shown otherwise.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

Duck shirt, my issue with your prediction is the lack of any sort of methodology or respect for historical trends. You make it sound like losing 4 points in 7 days was a common thing. You saw movement and then proclaimed "I see a trend". You don't differentiate between a close race and clearly losing. You don't seem to take in new data very well. And lastly you're way too over confident in your predictions.
Did real clear politics rate their polling firms? Or is that 538 we are talking about? It's not that I dislike other polling aggregators, just that i want a uniform averaging of the polls.

If you know so much, make another 7 day prediction. A good one that's can be proved and explain why it happened. Then explain how that connects to your previous prediction that Trump will lead the polls a week ago. Preferably you make the prediction before the debates.
Xeio wrote:I liked the argument that, even if Trump crashes and burns, that Trump's voters were way too influential in the primary that Cruz is burning any chance for future PotUS runs by not backing Trump now. Especially as it's clear Trump is mostly solidifying his Republican base behind him even if he ends up losing.
Granted, who knows. I mean it seems like half the old establishment seems to be announcing publicly they're voting against Trump, hard to guess what the party is going to look like after November...


The establishment bet on Trump is paying off. The Democrats aren't going to get to 60, and may even not get the majority in the chamber, and the house is safe. In addition, Democrats probably won't get enough buffer to survive losses in 2018 Senate races. Nobody is punishing further Congress's support of Trump more than the polling already shows. They got really lucky with bad Democratic candidates and Marco running in Florida.
Last edited by sardia on Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:00 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

Liri wrote:And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144


I probably should switch to weekly publications like Newsweek. Washington Post's daily dose of hyperventilation is annoying me severely.

Solid article with video proof of the bits that are relevant. Clearly an anti-Trump article no doubt, but its strongly supported by the facts. The only issue is that webpage is so awful, my Sandy Bridge i7 lags with Firefox and Edge when trying to read that page. So much Javascript shit makes the web-browsing experience awful.

sardia wrote:Duck shirt, my issue with your prediction is the lack of any sort of methodology or respect for historical trends. You make it sound like losing 4 points in 7 days was a common thing. You saw movement and then proclaimed "I see a trend". You don't differentiate between a close race and clearly losing. You don't seem to take in new data very well. And lastly you're way too over confident in your predictions.
Did real clear politics rate their polling firms? Or is that 538 we are talking about? It's not that I dislike other polling aggregators, just that i want a uniform averaging of the polls.

If you know so much, make another 7 day prediction. A good one that's can be proved and explain why it happened. Then explain how that connects to your previous prediction that Trump will lead the polls a week ago. Preferably you make the prediction before the debates. The establishment bet on Trump is paying off. The Democrats aren't going to get to 60, and may even not get the majority in the chamber, and the house is safe. In addition, Democrats probably won't get enough buffer to survive losses in 2018 Senate races. Nobody is punishing further Congress's support of Trump more than the polling already shows. They got really lucky with bad Democratic candidates and Marco running in Florida.


FYI: I didn't interpret duckshirt's post to be a "prediction", but it was more of a statement of facts.

Polls only tell you what people are thinking about right now. But a lot of people won't make their decision to vote until Late-October. So the value of polls at this stage of the election is still rather low.

Poll Numbers are the best we've got of course (and are the best, hard facts we can discuss), but that doesn't mean we treat them as the end-all be-all of debates.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144

I probably should switch to weekly publications like Newsweek. Washington Post's daily dose of hyperventilation is annoying me severely.
Solid article with video proof of the bits that are relevant. Clearly an anti-Trump article no doubt, but its strongly supported by the facts. The only issue is that webpage is so awful, my Sandy Bridge i7 lags with Firefox and Edge when trying to read that page. So much Javascript shit makes the web-browsing experience awful.


FYI: I didn't interpret duckshirt's post to be a "prediction", but it was more of a statement of facts.
Polls only tell you what people are thinking about right now. But a lot of people won't make their decision to vote until Late-October. So the value of polls at this stage of the election is still rather low.
Poll Numbers are the best we've got of course (and are the best, hard facts we can discuss), but that doesn't mean we treat them as the end-all be-all of debates.


Yes, polls aren't perfect, but my issue with duckshirt is him calling out a random piece of evidence, and using it as a basis for perfect prediction, and then denying that he was ever wrong. If I wanted to listen to crap like that, I'd watch cable 24 hours news. We should expect a higher level of discourse on this forum.
Spoiler:
I am predicting Trump FTW at this point. Hillary has only had two significant surges in the polls since spring, being 1) when she secured the nomination in early June and 2) Dem convention (keep in mind it took a couple weeks for the polls to catch up). Both events out of her control, where others endorsed her. Otherwise it's been flat or towards Trump, who seems better at turning news cycles in his favor. Hillary's health shouldn't logically be an issue, but she fainted at the most unfortunate timing imaginable... a 9/11 memorial. I predict Trump takes a small lead in the polls next week and mostly stays there til November, then gets good turnout on election day thanks to a shy/secret Trump vote currently supporting Gary Johnson in the polls. Just a prediction, I'm not always right.
Look at that condensed dumbness. A shy Trump voter? Who has ever seen a Trump voter, and thought "gosh, I hope I didn't intimidate him by accident, he's so darn shy". His line about surges in polls doesn't reflect the lead Hillary already has, it's there as fake evidence that he's right. He doesn't even think if being in the news in the general election could be bad for Trump.


As for trump lying, I'll believe that it matters when they file charges, or it is reflected in the polls. Also, if you were to see how long a trial would take, Trump would be in office by the time the jury decides.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:32 pm UTC

Definitely related: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... tic-panic/

I wish Nate and The Team didn't follow the practice of using such alarmist, almost clickbaity article titles. Nate's overriding message in every article and 538 chat is, "we can't say for sure, let's wait for more polls," but that hasn't been reflected lately. Maybe it's just because I'm anxious myself.

I'm even more anxious about what kind of narrative the media will spin about the debate before any polls have been taken.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144


I probably should switch to weekly publications like Newsweek. Washington Post's daily dose of hyperventilation is annoying me severely.

Solid article with video proof of the bits that are relevant. Clearly an anti-Trump article no doubt, but its strongly supported by the facts. The only issue is that webpage is so awful, my Sandy Bridge i7 lags with Firefox and Edge when trying to read that page. So much Javascript shit makes the web-browsing experience awful.
The auto-restart on the video auto-refreshes the whole page, too, so if you were typing a comment you may suddenly lose it, and it'll let you type it all out before asking you to log in then tell you it wants to not only see basic info about your Google+ account but also manage your contacts!

Er, no. I do not want to let the Washington Post manage my contacts. :?
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.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby pogrmman » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:58 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144


I probably should switch to weekly publications like Newsweek. Washington Post's daily dose of hyperventilation is annoying me severely.

Solid article with video proof of the bits that are relevant. Clearly an anti-Trump article no doubt, but its strongly supported by the facts. The only issue is that webpage is so awful, my Sandy Bridge i7 lags with Firefox and Edge when trying to read that page. So much Javascript shit makes the web-browsing experience awful.
The auto-restart on the video auto-refreshes the whole page, too, so if you were typing a comment you may suddenly lose it, and it'll let you type it all out before asking you to log in then tell you it wants to not only see basic info about your Google+ account but also manage your contacts!

Er, no. I do not want to let the Washington Post manage my contacts. :?


I'm glad to hear that website is absolute shit on other computers as well -- not just my new laptop. I was thinking something malfunctioned right as I visited it...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:08 am UTC

I've been lucky to use adblock and no script. It really cleans up the internet.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:08 pm UTC

I just tried it with AdBlock and FlashControl (in Chrome on Linux Mint) and it loaded fast. Stopping Flash from auto-playing is a must on the internet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:35 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Definitely related: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... tic-panic/

I wish Nate and The Team didn't follow the practice of using such alarmist, almost clickbaity article titles. Nate's overriding message in every article and 538 chat is, "we can't say for sure, let's wait for more polls," but that hasn't been reflected lately. Maybe it's just because I'm anxious myself.

I'm even more anxious about what kind of narrative the media will spin about the debate before any polls have been taken.

It may be off putting to have "panic or not" headline, but it's better than anything else that's on the news.

So what's Cruz's angle on supporting Trump? To avoid the wrath of Trump's base? I know it's too further his political ambition but I don't really see it. There's political value to ideological Purity. Why would he throws it away just to say he's voting Trump , sorta not really.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:So what's Cruz's angle on supporting Drumpf? To avoid the wrath of Drumpf's base? I know it's too further his political ambition but I don't really see it. There's political value to ideological Purity. Why would he throws it away just to say he's voting Drumpf , sorta not really.

Cruz quite handily won the Texas primary, so I doubt he needs to worry about his own reelection. They seem to like him (though wasn't there some booing from Texas when he didn't support Trump in his speech?).

As for ideological purity... maybe for young Democrats it's a big plus (re: Bernie Sanders), but based off Trump's very scattered positions through time, it doesn't look like GOP voters hold past views to the same level of scrutiny. It's all about what you're saying in the moment. Unless it's a Democrat you're talking about.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:43 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... st-debate/
Time for the debates, well almost time for the debate.
What would keep me up late at night if I were Clinton?

You mean, other than the fact that the election keeps getting closer every time I look?

As I put it in July: “I’d be worried that Americans come to view the race as one between two equally terrible choices, instead of Trump being uniquely unacceptable.” In particular, I’d be worried that my brand has irrevocably been tarnished with a reputation for dishonesty. Between Trump’s knack for exploiting this weakness (“Crooked Hillary”), the news media’s tendency to frame events as contributing to my honesty and trust problems, and some left-over hard feelings from the primaries — Clinton has yet to win over many of the millennials who voted for Bernie Sanders — I’m generally losing when polls ask who the more trustworthy candidate is.

In the short term, I’d be worried that the talk of Trump’s “low expectations” at the first debate is a tip-off that the media hivemind might frame a debate tie as a Trump win.
I've noticed that even on this forum, people have a tendency to consider Hillary equally as bad as Trump which is pretty impressive, or a measure of how little people care about authoritarianism and discrimination.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:36 am UTC

To me the theme since the conventions has been "false equivalence". The basic strategy is to throw the same shit at your opponent as they do at you so that no matter how bad what they say is about you, it seems like they have the same problem. Voters then see shit everywhere, figure everyone's shitty, and vote for a party rather than a person.

Trump has mastered the reversal tactic to achieve this. People don't like that he's a birther so just say your opponent was a BIGGER birther and thus you're both equally shitty. People are upset about your tax returns say at least you didn't destroy important records like clinton, false equivalence preserved.

I mean we've reached a point where there aren't really facts or opinions that are going to sway things. This election is not between a Republican and a Democrat as much as it is between fascism and democracy but the majority of the voters are reacting the opposite way and simply tuning out. The debate will get a lot of viewers from impassioned people on both sides (bigots on the right, populists on the left) but I don't think the swing voter wants to watch.

EDIT: This is a giant douche vs a turd sandwich kind of election and neither are inspiring choices but who would seriously prefer a turd sandwich to a giant douche? False equivalence. You can do way worse than Hillary Clinton. I can prove it! Look at her opponent.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:28 pm UTC

I've been seeing more articles by NPR and the NYT starting to own up to their role in creating this false equivalence. Maybe it's not too late? The real culprit though is cable news, except for folks like Rachel Maddow (but her viewers' vote was never really in question). And I doubt they'll jump in to take any blame if Trump wins.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:46 pm UTC

Isn't this giving too much credit to the media? I mean, people know that Trump is a power-tripping asshole whose views (at the least) border on racism. He's not subtle.

The simpler explanation is that a significant number of voters simply like Trump, because of those things. And another bunch does't consider those things disqualifying downsides, even if they might have preferred a more polite republican.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:28 pm UTC

mosc wrote: I can prove it! Look at her opponent.
If that is what you are selling the public isn't buying. Trump may be any number of things. But in a political sense he's a cipher. Everyone knows Hillary politically. If you just have to have someone to blame, blame the Democratic establishment for not putting up a better candidate.

The staus quo isn't working. Consider the Wells Fargo debacle. Someones head should be on a spike. And what happens? Congressional hearings, a small fine and some mea culpa's. I'll translate that for you. No penalty whatsoever of a type that will prevent it in the future. What has Hillary or Congress, or for that matter Obama done? Rinse and repeat with the drug industry. And the auto industry. And the security establishment. The elites have failed. And the public knows it. Donald isn't the answer, but he's managed to paint himself as something other than the political elite. And people are angry enough to go down the hell hole with him.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:51 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Isn't this giving too much credit to the media? I mean, people know that Trump is a power-tripping asshole whose views (at the least) border on racism. He's not subtle.

The simpler explanation is that a significant number of voters simply like Trump, because of those things. And another bunch does't consider those things disqualifying downsides, even if they might have preferred a more polite republican.

I'm talking more about the people who claim they're voting for Johnston/Stein because "both major party candidates suck!" Trump's diehard voters are probably scarier than the man himself, because there are so many of them.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests