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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books ... .html?_r=0
Not sure if this is unintentional comparison or just a blatant cash in at Trump. The page won't let me quote them, but it's chilling to listen descriptions of his rise to power. My favorite line is "why not give the National socialists a chance? They seem pretty gutsy to me."

That being said, I'm expecting only Bush Cheney levels of depravity, and police state, not world war III. If anything, demagogues are remarkably alike. But for those of you who think the civil servants will put up obstacles, there aren't enough altruistically employees to go around. There's always someone, say a sheriff or prosecutor, out looking to promote themselves by sacrificing other people's rights.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:58 pm UTC

He was never elected. He proved himself capable of murder early and often. Including his own allies. He was 44 years old in 1933 and the world was in the depths of the Great Depression. And he was poor. This leaves Trump out. The guy would have put Trump on a hook in a meat house, one of his techniques. Or do what he did to the German business elite. Like Krupp. Comparisons to Hitler are overblown. What interests me is the number of people who have sold out to the idea of him winning.

I'll make an observation. What cost Trump in the debate is his lack of prep. This perhaps could be the scariest thing I've seen to date.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He was never elected. He proved himself capable of murder early and often. Including his own allies. He was 44 years old in 1933 and the world was in the depths of the Great Depression. And he was poor. This leaves Trump out. The guy would have put Trump on a hook in a meat house, one of his techniques. Or do what he did to the German business elite. Like Krupp. Comparisons to Hitler are overblown. What interests me is the number of people who have sold out to the idea of him winning.

I'll make an observation. What cost Trump in the debate is his lack of prep. This perhaps could be the scariest thing I've seen to date.
it's probably just a money grab to cash in on Trump.
Yea, one could imagine a man of Cruz's intelligence, and Trump's platform of nativism and grievances. Trumps closing the distance with all his mistakes. A Hitler like level of charisma could easily win. "I know he's Hitler, but the real war crime is abortion" or "well, I just wanted to shake things up a bit, that Hitler guy is saying all the things people are too afraid to say".

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:41 am UTC

Trumps errors would be sins of omission. As such he is a pawn to someone who knows how to manipulate him. The power behind the throne. Not doing your homework at that level is the sin and a sign of both weakness and laziness, you can be sure the leaders of China or Russia do theirs. Comparing him to Hitler grants him too much credit. Both the Times and the Post have tooted that panic button way too much.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:38 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sen ... -lockstep/
The fortunes of the Senate seems very tied with the presidential election. That means split ticket voting is probably dead. Not even Trump can bring back split ticket voting, so it seems.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'll make an observation. What cost Trump in the debate is his lack of prep. This perhaps could be the scariest thing I've seen to date.


Trump routinely takes the easy way out. He doesn't seem the sort to prep hard for stuff, question himself, or do other things that are unpleasant.

Which, if president, could be interesting. I suspect that he'd simply get bored with a lot of presidential duties, and essentially pawn them off on underlings. And, yknow, heads will roll if they screw it up.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I'll make an observation. What cost Trump in the debate is his lack of prep. This perhaps could be the scariest thing I've seen to date.


Trump routinely takes the easy way out. He doesn't seem the sort to prep hard for stuff, question himself, or do other things that are unpleasant.

Which, if president, could be interesting. I suspect that he'd simply get bored with a lot of presidential duties, and essentially pawn them off on underlings. And, yknow, heads will roll if they screw it up.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. But you totally ignored the part where " an awful person who's smarter and more charismatic could win". Awful as defined by racism, nativism, sexism, corruption etc etc. There's also callous cruelty in there as well. Normally these would be disqualifying traits, but white voters don't seem to care. They're only upset that Trump didn't prepare for the debate. That's the scary part.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I'll make an observation. What cost Trump in the debate is his lack of prep. This perhaps could be the scariest thing I've seen to date.


Trump routinely takes the easy way out. He doesn't seem the sort to prep hard for stuff, question himself, or do other things that are unpleasant.

Which, if president, could be interesting. I suspect that he'd simply get bored with a lot of presidential duties, and essentially pawn them off on underlings. And, yknow, heads will roll if they screw it up.


Unfortunately, that's not how leadership works.

Lets look at Wells Fargo for instance: the CEO did NOT open millions of fake accounts. Nor did he command his underlings to do so. The CEO simply set up a culture where his underlings were incentivized to open up fake accounts (because underlings were paid on commissions, and bonuses were based on account numbers). Then when underlings blew the whistle on their colleague's behavior, the HR department was setup to retaliate against the whistleblowers.

So then the actions continue for 5 years, with the untalking culture of the underlings opening more and more fake accounts to create bonuses for themselves, while the CEO was none-the-wiser.

----------

Lazy leadership leads to bad leadership. A good CEO would have discovered the behavior a lot sooner... before dozens of millions of fake accounts were opened by the paying customers of Wells Fargo. Figuring out whether or not a whistleblower is simply retaliating against his immediate boss (Hey... erm... my boss sucks because he's opening fake accounts. I have no proof, but can you fire him please??) vs legitimately bringing up an issue of corporate culture is a difficult task that requires hard work.

-----------------------------------

In the case of Trump: we can expect ICE, DEA, and maybe FBI officials harassing individuals, with Trump none-the-wiser. Obama has worked very hard to explicitly make the head of the Justice department black (both with Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder), so that African Americans issues would be worked out at the federal level at least (Obama is nearly powerless with regards to local police forces like Ferguson however).

As others have said: the world won't end and I really don't think Trump is another Hitler. I think he'd be another Nixon: narcissistic and abusive of the powers that were given to him. But mostly for selfish and petty reasons.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:16 pm UTC

The alternateve take is that Wall Street used cross selling as a metric for the growth potential of banks,so upper management was completely happy when underlings boosted those cross selling numbers.

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 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:29 pm UTC

I'm more with Zamfir. While the president can't get involved with the running of local governments, a CEO can absolutely delve where they like within their company. I'm doubtful of complete ignorance. More like just enough willful uncertainty that they could convince themselves they wouldn't face perjury charges.
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
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

Nothing wrong with cross selling if it's done honestly.

The problem was that the company wasn't concerned enough with honesty, reputation or regulatory risk.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Which, if president, could be interesting.
Interesting doesn't really do that justice. Terrifying would be closer. Say what you will about the last few Presidents, some were good and maybe some were better but whatever the case they were interested and supported by top minds, agree with them or not. I never had the impression that they would sell me out purely for money. And Trump doesn't attract top minds.

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 29, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:As others have said: the world won't end and I really don't think Trump is another Hitler. I think he'd be another Nixon: narcissistic and abusive of the powers that were given to him. But mostly for selfish and petty reasons.

So, you expect the military to shoot at his political opponents under Trump.

His intelligence services to frame and spy on his political opponents.

Him to commit treason prior to entering office.

Large-scale government initiatives aimed at his political opponents, dressed in sheep's clothing, to be started, spending billions if not trillions of dollars over decades.

See, I could see that being reasonably likely.

But the problem is, there have been what, at most 1-5 US Presidents who might have been tempted to turn the USA into an autocracy since the US Civil War? And at most 1 or 2 actually tried and got stimied, maybe 0?

We don't have strong evidence that the US checks and balances work against a determined president who responds to being blocked with anger and lashing out. Given this lack of evidence and Trump's apparent temperment, we can only extrapolate from the stability of other democracies around the world against a radical autocrat taking the helm.

And really, those aren't good odds. Lots of democracies have fallen over.

I mean, it probably won't happen. But if you play russian roulette, you probably won't die either.
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.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:As others have said: the world won't end and I really don't think Trump is another Hitler. I think he'd be another Nixon: narcissistic and abusive of the powers that were given to him. But mostly for selfish and petty reasons.

So, you expect the military to shoot at his political opponents under Trump.

His intelligence services to frame and spy on his political opponents.

Him to commit treason prior to entering office.

Large-scale government initiatives aimed at his political opponents, dressed in sheep's clothing, to be started, spending billions if not trillions of dollars over decades.

See, I could see that being reasonably likely.

But the problem is, there have been what, at most 1-5 US Presidents who might have been tempted to turn the USA into an autocracy since the US Civil War? And at most 1 or 2 actually tried and got stimied, maybe 0?

We don't have strong evidence that the US checks and balances work against a determined president who responds to being blocked with anger and lashing out. Given this lack of evidence and Trump's apparent temperment, we can only extrapolate from the stability of other democracies around the world against a radical autocrat taking the helm.

And really, those aren't good odds. Lots of democracies have fallen over.

I mean, it probably won't happen. But if you play russian roulette, you probably won't die either.


Basically yes. Except one thing: I'm against Trump.

I just think that the Hitler comparison is wrong. Trump will be more like Nixon, in the ways you've described. (All of which can basically be described as COINTELPRO). Although to be fair, all Presidents between Truman and Nixon used that program.

Nixon was the one who was caught with his pants down of course, using COINTELPRO vs his political opponents.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Comparing Trump to Hitler is kinda insulting to Hitler. Hitler had principles, and the ability to make plans and think them through. He could spend time preparing for things like speeches. And could formulate coherent speeches. In German, which if anything is even more impressive.

I don't want to come over as pro-Hitler because it's not particularly PC, but the guy had a whole ton of leadership qualities that Trump doesn't.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Comparing Trump to Hitler is kinda insulting to Hitler. Hitler had principles, and the ability to make plans and think them through. He could spend time preparing for things like speeches. And could formulate coherent speeches. In German, which if anything is even more impressive.

I don't want to come over as pro-Hitler because it's not particularly PC, but the guy had a whole ton of leadership qualities that Trump doesn't.
I must have missed that part about him. And I've never heard the word principles used in reference to him, certainly.

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 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

The Nazis were notorious for changing positions whenever it suited them. They couldn't decide whether to appropriate Christianity or abolish it, whether to oppose the business class and aristocracy or co-operate with them, whether to favor the Chinese (up to 1941) or the Japanese (from 1941), whether Slavs were good Aryans (like the Bulgarians and Croats) or subhumans (like the Poles and Ukrainians), and what the hell "Aryan" meant in the first place (given that they were killing the only actual ones in Europe). And Hitler's prideful micromanagement and cultivation of anarchic competition among his subordinates were a recipe for failure. He "revived" Germany's economy with exorbitant military spending that could only be sustained by conquest, and then threw the country into a cataclysmic war that left it conquered and in ruins. He was a terrible leader in every conceivable way.
Exit the vampires' castle.

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 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

In non-Nazi news, Clinton has retaken Florida and Nevada in Nate Silver's polls-only model and raised her chance of victory back above 60%.
Exit the vampires' castle.

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 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:In non-Nazi news, Clinton has retaken Florida and Nevada in Nate Silver's polls-only model and raised her chance of victory back above 60%.

The Florida polls can't have this news affecting them yet, either: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37509546
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
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:23 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:As others have said: the world won't end and I really don't think Trump is another Hitler. I think he'd be another Nixon: narcissistic and abusive of the powers that were given to him. But mostly for selfish and petty reasons.

Sadly though those two options - Nixon or Hitler - arent mutually exclusive. Its not like Hitler didnt abuse government power to go after his enemies.

But my greatest worry is that he is another Kennedy. Willing to gamble with the fate of the world just to satisfy his ego. Except perhaps even more belligerent and even less willing to listen to reason or to compromise. That's a truly fucking scary idea.

Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

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 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:38 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.

If I had to be a single-issue voter, it would be for action on climate change. I'm not, and I like the rest of the Democratic platform too, but exactly, yeah - a [current] Republican getting elected president any time in the near future would be disastrous.
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: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:28 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.

If I had to be a single-issue voter, it would be for action on climate change. I'm not, and I like the rest of the Democratic platform too, but exactly, yeah - a [current] Republican getting elected president any time in the near future would be disastrous.

What would you rather have, a GOP president but Democrats get all the state houses and congress.
Or
Democratic president but you lose congress and the states. Neither one has enough to over ride the president.

Aka I'm flipping what's currently going on. Honestly, the conservatives win either way. Foreign policy is a huge money suck that Democrats can't oppose effectively, and the corrosive effect of judge picks are insidious to the opposing party.
But the ability to control 3/4 of the States in a patchwork liberalism is pretty damn good.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:32 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mis ... -register/
There's 24 million uneducated whites out there ripe for a Trump picking. If he manages to activate 1 in 8 , even Obama would lose to him. Luckily for us, Trump hasn't managed to get any of them to vote. Evidence is based on the lack of voter registration surges. Trump instead is consolidating the likely voters pool. Which means Hillarys conservative push failed. She'll have to turn out her base instead.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:42 am UTC

What is the best possible result of this election? I actually hope Trump wins... but then the Republicans lose every single other race, so that he can't do a damn thing. I don't think he'd be able to do as much damage as Hillary could where the Republicans lost every single other race; that woman is scary effective as a politician.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:00 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What is the best possible result of this election? I actually hope Trump wins... but then the Republicans lose every single other race, so that he can't do a damn thing. I don't think he'd be able to do as much damage as Hillary could where the Republicans lost every single other race; that woman is scary effective as a politician.

Probably the inverse of what you said, Hillary wins, but barely. Anything she does will be on a 2 year clock, then the mid terms wash aways Democratic gains. The following election is pretty weak, might be able to knock her off there.

I think the Democratic landslide option is closed, not withstanding the high chance assigned in the models (for a rare event). The huge swings in probability to win are all based around margins of .3 pt edge, to a 3 point edge. Tiny change, huge swings in winning.

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 30, 2016 1:33 am UTC

Lazar wrote:In non-Nazi news, Clinton has retaken Florida and Nevada in Nate Silver's polls-only model and raised her chance of victory back above 60%.


Only some of the polls are in yet. Especially, we're still waiting on the live telephone polls which take a few days to take their results (so as to get past the initial Clinton enthusiasm rush), and which have historically been a tad more favourable to Clinton.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

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 30, 2016 1:45 am UTC

I'm worried about the Yahtzee voters.

I know of such people (and can recognise the tendency in myself), whereby there's a personal conviction that "things aren't right" and they want to shake up all the dice in the hope that it all lands in a better configuration.

Here in the UK they can be seen in both the Brexit vote ("I don't think the EU works, let's (give them a scare|start from scratch|DESTROY EUROPE!!!1) by voting Leave") and the obvious rise of people in support of Corbyn2 against his own party.

The perception is that "what's happening now isn't working, we need someone who isn't a (normal/everyday/career) politician". Give or take a mix of contemporary circumstances, it's not a new principle. In the last couple of decades, at least, it likely helped get us Blair, it probably got you Obama, and they did turn out Ok (at first, at least, in one of those cases).

I think there's people who are primarily #neverHillary because Hillary is the establishment part of a 'failed' administration (perceived as such, at least). They didn't like Jeb or Cruz or any of 'their' more established counter-candidates, either, for similar reasons. They'd vote in a rabid raccoon instead, in fact, but they have decided to settle for Trump as the nearest alternative.


Which does not mean all Trump supporters are that. But it's the obvious place for 'spoiler voters' to actually make their mark, gven 3rd-party candidates are essentially protest vote 'sinks'. And if anything tips the balance (as I think it did in Brexit, which I didn't support, and probably highly featured in Corbyn's recent confirmation of leadership, which I sort of did3), I think it'll be the Yahtzees just wanting to shake things up who led to it. Beware, though. (Some of the Yahtzees became Regretful Brexiters, whilst I was Remain but now seem to have the over-whelming Yahtzee urge for hard-Brexit, ASAP, to get it all done and dusted and bring about whatever New World Order arises from the resulting crash... But until then nobody is getting what they want, and most people won't get what they want afterwards, either... Unless it is just 'something that is not like it is now'.)


1 No exageration. That is the attitude of certain friends. Including Germany refragmenting into its pre-Bismark status, etc...

2 Politically opposite to Trump. Ideologically opposite to Trump. But is off-establishment like Trump and has a grass-roots crowd (at least some of whom are this Yahtzee lot) dedicated to him, if not his party, like Trump.

3 To qualify this, I dislike the Blairite side, and find him satisfyingly honest, unlike his various opponents from both within and without the party, but at the sameI disagree highly over duch things as his ideas re: Trident and the Falklands.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:57 am UTC

Good news from Fox News.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news ... dge-2016-9

A Fox News executive sent a memo to television producers and the politics team on Tuesday afternoon reminding employees that unscientific online polls "do not meet our editorial standards."

Dana Blanton, the vice president of public-opinion research at Fox News, explained in the memo obtained by Business Insider that "online 'polls' like the one on Drudge, Time, etc. where people can opt-in or self-select … are really just for fun."

"As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can't be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate," Blanton wrote.

As the Fox News executive pointed out, users who participate in such polls must have internet access, be online at the time of the poll, be fans of the website in question, and self-select to participate.


While the damage has already been done, its good to see that the executives at Fox do in fact know fact from fiction. It would be nice if Fox News themselves published an errata, but I guess its too late for that now (24-hour news cycle and all)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:24 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What is the best possible result of this election? I actually hope Trump wins... but then the Republicans lose every single other race, so that he can't do a damn thing. I don't think he'd be able to do as much damage as Hillary could where the Republicans lost every single other race; that woman is scary effective as a politician.
You underestimate Trump. Remember, Trump is a chump who went on the stump and was dismissed as a lump. And out of nowhere, he's the Republican nominee for the leader of the free world. He hasn't a clue about the international situation, thinks that the government should have making a profit as its primary goal, and is willing to declare bankruptcy for any of his companies (or nations) if it suits him. More importantly, he's only about himself, acts as if he knows more about {any field} than {all experts in that field}, cares not a whit about the ship he's commanding, and is proud of it. This would be harmless buffoonery if he didn't somehow manage to come from nowhere (sure, a rich nowhere, but still politically nowhere) to become the leading Republican candidate in the face of his abusive racist misogynistic hatemongering.

I have no doubt that, if he wins this election, we won't need another one. He is not interested in being president. He aims to be king.

I would like to believe that Congress could stop him, but for some reason, the entire Republican Party could not do the same, despite its loathing for what he represents. So, I don't hold much hope of this. "It can't happen here", until it already did and it's too late.

No, the best outcome would be the total self-destruction of the present Republican party, and a Hillary victory.

I strongly support some Republican tenets (in addition to some Democrat tenets), but the present Republican party does not embody them any more; they have become a polarizing obstructionist petty caricature of leadership. (The Democrats are not blameless, but they are not dangerous in the same way).

We will then have four years for a new political party to form (or for the Republican party to re-form) around real conservative non-polarizing ideals, and provide a good alternative to the present Democratic party (whose tenets I do not wholly embrace, despite my affinity for some of them). Because the hatred and racism and anti-intellectualism that is seething in this country will point (validly) to the "failed" Clinton presidency for not bringing them ponies and rainbows, and the Trump faction will still be out there.

Further, in the self-examination of the country (that will probably not occur), perhaps we'd consider a change in the method of voting that would dis-incentivize the polarization that passes for political thinking these days. Something along the line of approval voting or Condorcet voting, along with a good public education on how the method works (which is not beyond people's intelligence, but is perhaps beyond people's willingness to think). That is the shakeup that has to happen.

I'm much less concerned about policy. And I'm very concerned about policy.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:12 am UTC

No, the best outcome would be the total self-destruction of the present Republican party, and a Hillary victory.


At least, the part of the Republican Party that supported Trump. Which is most of it, but not all of it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:20 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
No, the best outcome would be the total self-destruction of the present Republican party, and a Hillary victory.
At least, the part of the Republican Party that supported Trump. Which is most of it, but not all of it.
No. All of it. It's been dysfunctional for years and years; that's why Trump was able to take over.

It should be re-formed from scratch. From real conservatives who hold values, but respect the fact that others hold other values, and are willing to work with them. It needs to be a political party, not a religion.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:34 am UTC

Problem is, all those current participants in the GOP who are not 'real conservatives' by your standards have to go somewhere. They aren't just going to disappear or be excluded from the next incarnation of this party.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:55 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Problem is, all those current participants in the GOP who are not 'real conservatives' by your standards have to go somewhere. They aren't just going to disappear or be excluded from the next incarnation of this party.
Yes, that is the problem. Or A problem. The hope is that if the party completely self-destructs, those folk will *koff* realize the error of their ways. *koff* *koff* (yeah, I can't really say that with a straight face) What they are more likely to do is join the Trump party and blame the rigged election. Maybe they'll be marginalized. *koff*

Problem is that the populace, not without cause, still feels disenfranchised, and the political system we have has fostered the hatred and polarization that makes it difficult to even talk intelligently to the "other side", let alone actually cooperate.

We have four years to fix that, or we'll have a replay and we may not survive that one.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:08 am UTC

I'm a Rockefeller Republican, which is more leftwing than the average Democrat at this point. We're still alive, we promise! Please let us back!

The Republicans need to get their heads out of their asses.

[*]Become lukewarmly in support of sex ed and gay rights. Because the Republicans lost those wars, they were on the wrong side, and it's time to move on already.

[*]Get back to what really matters; making it easier for small businesses to form, if for no other reason than Mom & Pop Shops historically having been overwhelming Republican. Get rid of the abuses of big businesses and the ultra-rich; sure they may be your biggest donors but seriously, they might as well all be Democrats because they are forcing everyone into the Dem's arms.

[*]Stop pissing off the religious, conservative and strong family values Hispanics; their skin may be brown but their blood is red. For the love of god, stop trying to stick Jesus up everyone else's ass. Creationism is junk science, come down hard against it.

[*]Then go after the Democrats for their anti-scientific bullshit such as DSHEA and OCCAM and NCCAM and Anti-vaxxers and virtually all other alternatives to medicine, because that's the Democrats' biggest weakness right now.

[*]And seriously, global warming is a thing, stop pretending it's not it's just making you look like idiots at this point. Get behind wind, but if you must, require that the plastic in the turbines be made from corn or something to get the farmers to agree to it. And get behind nuclear, which has the fewest deaths per petawatt of any significant form of energy, even including Chernobyl. If it makes you happy, just put the navy in charge of all the nuclear plants or something.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:26 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.

If I had to be a single-issue voter, it would be for action on climate change. I'm not, and I like the rest of the Democratic platform too, but exactly, yeah - a [current] Republican getting elected president any time in the near future would be disastrous.


The next American president will hardly budge the needle either way on climate change. The next 4 years aren't any more or less important than the 4 before or after. All talk.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:30 am UTC

Mutex wrote:Comparing Trump to Hitler is kinda insulting to Hitler. Hitler had principles, and the ability to make plans and think them through. He could spend time preparing for things like speeches. And could formulate coherent speeches. In German, which if anything is even more impressive.

I don't want to come over as pro-Hitler because it's not particularly PC, but the guy had a whole ton of leadership qualities that Trump doesn't.
Try reading Mein Kampf. 'Coherent' is not a word I would associate with it.

Hitler was neither a man of principle nor much of a long-term thinker. He was a self-aggrandizing bully, liar, and narcissist. We only know his name because of a confluence of circumstances and his own willingness to ruthlessly exploit those circumstances. If you met him today, you'd probably describe him as an ignorant, racist, thin-skinned clown. His greatest abilities consisted of reading a crowd, riling that crowd up around yesterday's headline, and selling himself.

Sound familiar?

I don't think Trump is Hitler; Hitler is Hitler. But I do think Hitler demonstrates an important lesson about not underestimating the danger of petty, theatrical demagogues with a groundswell of 'populist' support galvanized by overtly racist beliefs toward minorities. Especially when said demagogues express their admiration for dictators and the authoritarian systems required to support them.

If the Nazis had consisted of only people like Hitler, Nazism would be a historical footnote -- at most. Hitler became Hitler because his colleagues weren't like him -- they were men with political and financial capital; men with patience, competence, and conviction. Men willing to invest in a chronic liar and narcissist's bizarre, malformed power-fantasy -- putting into practice his violent, ever-changing, half-baked theories about race, nationalism, and governance.

So, in summary, if we're worried about something like Hitler happening again, what should we look out for? Well, we should look out for democracies in states of economic and political turmoil (check). Look out for impulsive, pro-authoritarian crackpots with a taste for showmanship (check) who are galvanizing a base by (1) exploiting a deep racial divide via bullshit nativist narratives and fear of 'outsiders' (check), (2) claiming we need to restore our 'once-great nation' to its 'former glory' (check), and (3) selling a story where the only cure for an impotent, dysfunctional government is a tough, no-nonsense outsider -- like him -- willing to seize power from the feeble and corrupt, only so he might fix things himself (check). Especially look out if that person ends up surrounded by people with both the desire and the means to propel him into a position of overwhelming power (check).

But it's not like he's got all the red flags. For starters, I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't paint, wasn't born in Austria, and has no interest in conquering Poland.

(He's not interested in conquering Poland, right?)


EDIT: Also, as terrible as Nixon was, I can't help but think that he would have eaten Trump alive.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:14 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Liri wrote:
Diadem wrote:Another issue is that the next couple of years are quite crucial if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Thus a Trump presidency could be disastrous on a global scale even if he does absolutely nothing.

If I had to be a single-issue voter, it would be for action on climate change. I'm not, and I like the rest of the Democratic platform too, but exactly, yeah - a [current] Republican getting elected president any time in the near future would be disastrous.


The next American president will hardly budge the needle either way on climate change. The next 4 years aren't any more or less important than the 4 before or after. All talk.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Inaction is continuing to move the needle towards further warming. If no steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most models don't even bother predicting a peak temperature. It is quite unimaginable how bad it could get. Aside from that, there are too many conversations on here about climate change to start another and I'm going to leave it there.

If you believe humans are causing it but don't care to do anything about it, at least don't stop the ones who do care from trying.
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
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:22 pm UTC

Damn Hippo that was awesome.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:10 pm UTC

Like, do people even remember that this is the same clown who advocated murdering the families of terrorists?
Donald Trump wrote:...when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.

Or what about his comments regarding wives of the 9-11 attackers?
Donald Trump wrote:Well, at least I would go after the wives who absolutely knew what was happening, and... I guess your definition of what I'd do -- I'm going to leave that to your imagination. But I will tell you, I would be very tough on families. Because the families know what's happening.

Or his desire to ban all Muslims from America?
Donald Trump wrote:Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countries' representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice.

...

...released data showing 25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans -- these are people that are here, by the way! People here -- 25, not 1% -- by the way, 1% would be unacceptable! -- 1% is unacceptable! -- 25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified -- think of that -- as part of the global jihad.

They want to change your religion. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. Not gonna happen.

This man is one terrorist attack away from advocating internment camps -- or worse. And as of right now, fivethirtyeight puts his chances at around forty percent. If I were a Muslim-American, I would have already started making tentative plans to get myself and my family out of the States in case of a Trump victory. I'm not even joking.

When people described Bush as Hitler, I rolled my eyes. But this guy? Yeah, I can kind of see it.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:39 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Like, do people even remember that this is the same clown who advocated murdering the families of terrorists?
Donald Trump wrote:...when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.

Or what about his comments regarding wives of the 9-11 attackers?
Donald Trump wrote:Well, at least I would go after the wives who absolutely knew what was happening, and... I guess your definition of what I'd do -- I'm going to leave that to your imagination. But I will tell you, I would be very tough on families. Because the families know what's happening.

Or his desire to ban all Muslims from America?
Donald Trump wrote:Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countries' representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice.

...

...released data showing 25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans -- these are people that are here, by the way! People here -- 25, not 1% -- by the way, 1% would be unacceptable! -- 1% is unacceptable! -- 25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified -- think of that -- as part of the global jihad.

They want to change your religion. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. Not gonna happen.

This man is one terrorist attack away from advocating internment camps -- or worse. And as of right now, fivethirtyeight puts his chances at around forty percent. If I were a Muslim-American, I would have already started making tentative plans to get myself and my family out of the States in case of a Trump victory. I'm not even joking.

When people described Bush as Hitler, I rolled my eyes. But this guy? Yeah, I can kind of see it.


So... ironically, Trump is like Putin or any tin pot 3rd world dictator that the Far Left in this country seems to adore, or at least insists on hearing their side of the story.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests