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: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Thesh wrote:Basically, the whole FBI needs to be cleaned up due to the Hatch Act:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump

How did the FBI become so pro-Trump? That's kind of weird. Usually civil service is pretty pro-establishment, and pretty conservative in the "not wanting any change" sense of the word. Hillary seems like a pretty good candidate for them. Perhaps a bit too left-wing, but she's unlikely to make any major reforms or rock the boat too much. Trump is pretty much the opposite. There's the chance that he'll be an exceptionally weak president who will pretty much let the civil service do whatever they want, and I guess that's ideal (from their point of view), but there's also the risk that he'll be very authoritarian, or will just start reforming entire departments.

The FBI demographics are the same as the police, and military: White uneducated but technically skilled individuals who make up above average pay. 66% of the FBI is white male, and think if it weren't for all these rules, we could bring law and order back to the country. After that, it gets speculative. Is it Clinton's shadiness? Is it just a few rogue agents? etc etc.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

Early voting results indicate that Clinton may have taken an early lead in Nevada, to the point where Trump might not be able to win Nevada, which he will have trouble winning without.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/ ... index.html
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

Liri wrote:I'm not trusting Nate any more. Sam Wang with Princeton gives a brief mention of why 538 looks so different from most other polling aggregates here.

We'll know in a few days in any case. I just talked to a friend from college who wrote-in Stein in NC. No point chewing him out now. He at least voted straight Democratic for the rest of the ticket.

Hey Liri, Can we discuss this further? Why do you think 538's model is less trustworthy from other models.
( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/201 ... /president
http://predictwise.com/politics
http://election.princeton.edu/
http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016 )

Check out the comparable models with a selection of swing states below. In short, you seem to be arguing against 538 because it's less certain about the race. 538 assumes that there can be and has been polling errors in the past, and that states are interrelated. If the states voted independently, Trump's odds of winning crashes to like 10%.
Attachments
model.jpg

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The FBI demographics are the same as the police, and military: White uneducated but technically skilled individuals

From the FBI landing page for people hunting for a job.
What to Know Before Applying

To be eligible for the FBI Special Agent position, candidates must meet all of the requirements on our Eligibility page, as well as the following:

Have at least three years of full-time work experience — this does not include summer jobs, internships, seasonal positions, temporary employment and/or volunteer work. Certain specified experiences or abilities may waive some (but not all) of the work experience requirement:
A Juris Doctorate (J.D.)
A license as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
An advanced degree
Be available for assignment anywhere in the FBI's global jurisdiction

There are specific situations that will automatically disqualify candidates from the application process.

View the disqualifiers here

While the FBI encourages applicants from all backgrounds to become Special Agents, we are currently looking for Special Agent applicants with skills in the following particular areas:

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
Foreign Languages
Law
Emergency Medicine
Certified Public Accountants (CPAs)
Attorneys
Engineers
Detectives
Military (specifically Special Forces, Explosives, WMD and Intelligence Experts)
Scientists (lab experience)
Foreign Language(s) speakers
Pilots (helicopter, fixed-wing)

To see more about the core competencies we look for in applicants, view the FAQs section.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

So you don't need an education to work for the FBI if you have experience in Law Enforcement, which seems consistent with sardia's post.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:27 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Liri wrote:I'm not trusting Nate any more. Sam Wang with Princeton gives a brief mention of why 538 looks so different from most other polling aggregates here.

We'll know in a few days in any case. I just talked to a friend from college who wrote-in Stein in NC. No point chewing him out now. He at least voted straight Democratic for the rest of the ticket.

Hey Liri, Can we discuss this further? Why do you think 538's model is less trustworthy from other models.
( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/201 ... /president
http://predictwise.com/politics
http://election.princeton.edu/
http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016 )

Check out the comparable models with a selection of swing states below. In short, you seem to be arguing against 538 because it's less certain about the race. 538 assumes that there can be and has been polling errors in the past, and that states are interrelated. If the states voted independently, Drumpf's odds of winning crashes to like 10%.

I was *mostly* kidding, because I don't like what it shows. Sam Wang mentions that 538's code does/might double-count the swings, making it more volatile, which is what I was alluding to. 538 also, like you mention, takes into account that there might be an overriding bias in one direction or the other for every single poll, which gives a Clinton landslide a hefty chance along with a higher probability of Trump winning.

There's also the different assumptions the modelers make - Nate's "Polls-Plus" takes into account the "fundamentals" that he continuously critiques (yet leaves them in...), and I think on some level he might be trying to compensate for ignoring Trump way back at the beginning of the Primary.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:40 pm UTC

The fundamentals are a declining modifier, as it approaches election day, polls plus and polls only converge. It's a good shortcut early in the race, much more predictive than the early polls.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:49 pm UTC

Yeah, I know *why* he does it. (I've read almost every 538 article about the election since this time last year, like it sounds you have.) The counterargument is that there are so few elections, relatively, that it's difficult to pick out the "normal" ones to try to find trends from them. The main use it has is probably to diminish 3rd-party results in polls (which is valid).
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:28 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So you don't need an education to work for the FBI if you have experience in Law Enforcement, which seems consistent with sardia's post.
This seems to disagree.
To be considered for the Special Agent position, you must:
Be a U.S. citizen
Be 23 to 36 years old.
Meet the Special Agent physical fitness standards.
Possess a minimum of a U.S.-accredited bachelor's degree.
Have at least three years of full-time work experience.
Meet U.S. residency requirements.
Have a valid U.S. driver's license.
Be completely available for assignment anywhere in the FBI's jurisdiction.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:53 am UTC

So, Nevada.

The polls that 538 are using, what do they use to determine likely voters? If there is indeed a huge surge of first-time Latino voters, and strong evidence that they are voting Hillary, how would that impact the model?

Moreso, there is some evidence that Nevada is now locked in as democratic, due to early voting stats. Basically more people early vote in Nevada than vote on the day by a factor of about 4; and their party registration is recorded. From this we can project a range of possible vote counts.

And the projected current vote margin that Hillary has is pretty insurmountable. It was larger than Obama had when he carried the state.

There is some evidence that somewhat similar things (a first-time Latino vote surge) are happening in AZ, NC and Florida.
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
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:56 am UTC

Thesh wrote:The Hatch Act prevents executive employees from campaigning, and then there are DOJ policies Comey violated (and was warned about ahead of time) that prevented him from discussing ongoing investigations close to elections if they might interfere. Comey definitely violated the latter policy, and may he violated the Hatch Act if he released it deliberately to affect the election, which he probably did because his actions make no sense otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939



His actions were in response to congressional action. He told congress the investigation into Clinton's email server had concluded and if new information came to light he would notify them. It is public record. Stop trying to make this something that it isn't. I am sure there are dozens of posts by yourself and others praising Comey back in July for the conclusions he made then. Those of us with security clearances were blown away by his decision. As were his agents no doubt. The intelligence community is certainly not one to take this kind of bullsh!t lightly. Many Americans work every day to safeguard the information she treated like toilet paper. I am sick of your's and other's characterizarion of the FBI. Thanks for convincing me to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson but you, and people like you, have pushed me over the edge this week.

Don't bother responding, I am done with this forum topic. You all are so narrow minded. I am sure you'll go straight to attacking me personally somehow without even knowing an ounce about me. At this point it'd be entertaining to see Trump win just to watch you squirm.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:59 am UTC

Yakk wrote:So, Nevada.

The polls that 538 are using, what do they use to determine likely voters?


Probably none at all, since 538 is a poll-of-polls. So they leave that detail probably to the polls that they pull data from.

Instead, 538 probably applies some sort of reliability scores to the various polls (assuming some degree of variance and co-variance) and then calculates a win probability based on the current data.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:15 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:I am sure you'll go straight to attacking me personally somehow without even knowing an ounce about me.


Derp.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:21 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:His actions were in response to congressional action. He told congress the investigation into Clinton's email server had concluded and if new information came to light he would notify them. It is public record.
The thing that makes me think it was political at this point is that he apparently waited for a month (which is to say, until the exact moment at which the news had the best chance to swing the election) before he wrote the letter.

I am sure there are dozens of posts by yourself and others praising Comey back in July for the conclusions he made then.
Feel free to dig some up.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:28 am UTC

Spoiler:
trpmb6 wrote:
Thesh wrote:The Hatch Act prevents executive employees from campaigning, and then there are DOJ policies Comey violated (and was warned about ahead of time) that prevented him from discussing ongoing investigations close to elections if they might interfere. Comey definitely violated the latter policy, and may he violated the Hatch Act if he released it deliberately to affect the election, which he probably did because his actions make no sense otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939



His actions were in response to congressional action. He told congress the investigation into Clinton's email server had concluded and if new information came to light he would notify them. It is public record. Stop trying to make this something that it isn't. I am sure there are dozens of posts by yourself and others praising Comey back in July for the conclusions he made then. Those of us with security clearances were blown away by his decision. As were his agents no doubt. The intelligence community is certainly not one to take this kind of bullsh!t lightly. Many Americans work every day to safeguard the information she treated like toilet paper. I am sick of your's and other's characterizarion of the FBI. Thanks for convincing me to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson but you, and people like you, have pushed me over the edge this week.

Don't bother responding, I am done with this forum topic. You all are so narrow minded. I am sure you'll go straight to attacking me personally somehow without even knowing an ounce about me. At this point it'd be entertaining to see Trump win just to watch you squirm.

It's gonna be entertaining watching all those Trumpers bend over at the gunstore to buy more guns at ridiculously high prices. Don't be one of those fake leavers, nobody likes a liar.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:30 am UTC

Yakk wrote:
The polls that 538 are using, what do they use to determine likely voters? If there is indeed a huge surge of first-time Latino voters, and strong evidence that they are voting Hillary, how would that impact the model?
They leave it up to the polls to determine likely voters.

They talked briefly about early voting affects in the podcast, and currently the model doesn't really account for it except where the pollsters themselves do. They have cautioned that there isn't a lot of data (except maybe in Nevada) to model on early voting data or its effects, especially since early/mail voting has been getting more popular over the years.

Might be an interesting source of error in the model though, I bet we'll be seeing them talk about it in more detail once the numbers are in next week for states that break down the totals separately.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:16 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Those of us with security clearances were blown away by his decision.


1. You blew your cover because you felt like whining on a forum post. Good job demonstrating your dedication to your clearance.

2. You are demonstrating why the American people are distrustworthy of "elitist" Washington Insiders, pretending that your clearance gives you a better opinion in this election than others. This is an unnecessary black mark upon "those of you" with clearances and you are not doing a good job representing them.

--------

Make a point without leaning on your background or security clearance. If you know the issues, I'm sure you'd be able to. But pulling out this card is supremely immature in many respects, most important professionally. Unless you really think its cool to brag about your security clearance on social networking sites to make a political point?

I doubt your boss would appreciate your decision right now, especially if you were going to rage-quit this forum anyway. Try not to do anything bad for your career on your way out.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:37 am UTC

Don't take the troll so seriously guys.

I wonder if Clinton, assuming she'll win, will fire Comey. She has pretty good reasons to, a normal professional relationship is obviously impossible at this point, but there is no way she can do it without it looking political. She could easily get away with it though if she does it in her first week in office. Republicans will already be shouting bloody murder anyway, and Democrats won't be saying anything negative about their shiny new president.

It's kinda weird to consider that Comey was appointed be Obama. Why he appointed a Republican is beyond me. That's the Democrats' problem, they keep trying to cooperate and reaching a cross the aile when the Republicans don't. But you'd think Obama would know better after 5 years (back when Comey was appointed) in office.
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
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:40 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I wonder if Clinton, assuming she'll win, will fire Comey. She has pretty good reasons to, a normal professional relationship is obviously impossible at this point, but there is no way she can do it without it looking political. She could easily get away with it though if she does it in her first week in office. Republicans will already be shouting bloody murder anyway, and Democrats won't be saying anything negative about their shiny new president.
Is there any particular reason Obama couldn't fire him on his way out the door?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:45 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:His actions were in response to congressional action. He told congress the investigation into Clinton's email server had concluded and if new information came to light he would notify them.
ahammel wrote: The thing that makes me think it was political at this point is that he apparently waited for a month (which is to say, until the exact moment at which the news had the best chance to swing the election) before he wrote the letter.


(response not addressed to the quoted people, but relates to what was said)

The view from those that think government is made up primarily of dedicated public servants doing their best, that sometimes get into sticky circumstances because, well, things are complicated: Comey gave the email investigation his best shot, came up mostly empty, and said so. New evidence came to light making his earlier statement misleading. Speak up and be thought of (now) as trying to influence the election. Keep quiet and be thought of (later) as having hidden something in order to influence the election. No good way out.

The view from those who think there are government level conspiracies to illegally influence the election: Comey planned ahead, knowing that there was new information that could be arranged to conveniently show up. He can't find anything on Hillary, so he says so, forcing him into a sticky situation when he arranges for the new evidence to come to light. Now he has to say something in order to not "be part of a coverup". Plausible deniability, truth won't come out until after the election, mission accomplished.

In the several days before the election, it's not easy (and might not even be possible) to distinguish between these two cases a priori. But whatever your existing opinion of government (and Comey) is, one of these scenarios will confirm it. So, you already know you're right, and now you're really sure.

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 * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:33 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Thanks for convincing me to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson
Wait. Your username isn't "Trump '16" now? I'd have sworn your username was a campaign sign. Oh, well.

You're asking a Trump supporter to back up his assertions with evidence, facts and details.

sardia wrote:Don't be one of those fake leavers, nobody likes a liar.
Ouch.

ucim wrote:The view from those that think government is made up primarily of dedicated public servants doing their best, that sometimes get into sticky circumstances because, well, things are complicated: Comey gave the email investigation his best shot, came up mostly empty, and said so. New evidence came to light making his earlier statement misleading. Speak up and be thought of (now) as trying to influence the election. Keep quiet and be thought of (later) as having hidden something in order to influence the election. No good way out.

The view from those who think there are government level conspiracies to illegally influence the election: Comey planned ahead, knowing that there was new information that could be arranged to conveniently show up. He can't find anything on Hillary, so he says so, forcing him into a sticky situation when he arranges for the new evidence to come to light. Now he has to say something in order to not "be part of a coverup". Plausible deniability, truth won't come out until after the election, mission accomplished.

In the several days before the election, it's not easy (and might not even be possible) to distinguish between these two cases a priori. But whatever your existing opinion of government (and Comey) is, one of these scenarios will confirm it. So, you already know you're right, and now you're really sure.

Jose
Or ... Pressure was applied somewhere to trigger an investigation in the hope of digging up dirt that would make Hillary lose the election, he got landed with the job of looking for it, he told Congress he'd done his job and had found nothing again, about half of Congress thanked him and the other half or so muttered and snarled, some clown sent photographs of his own genitalia to a bunch of 14-year-old boys, the FBI grabbed everything the clown owned that had any RAM at all, there were some emails stored on a hard drive in something they grabbed and one of them mentioned Hillary Clinton. At that point, Comey ..... {one month delay here, it seems} ..... told Congress that they'd found some more emails and were looking into them, and Fox & Fiends went: "Ah-HAH! Evidence! Conclusive evidence that Hillary Clinton is guilty of fraud, treason, carelessness with secrets, aiding the enemy, supplying weapons to the Taliban, putting American lives at risk, giving babies AIDS, the Oklahoma city bombing and all the Rotherham child abuse scandals ever! Vote Halliburton."

Putting American lives at risk?

Spoiler:
You know America's had three times more people die of "Oops, I thought that was unloaded" since 9/11 than were killed in the 9/11 attacks?

You know America's had ten times more people die of bad driving every year since 9/11 than were killed in the 9/11 attacks?

I wonder what the candidates' positions on a danger that's killed between 30,000 and 55,000 people per year since the end of WW2 could be. I don't recall seeing them in the wrap-around US Election special supplements attached to my papers over here.

Okay, so Hillary Clinton doesn't have a road safety policy at all.

[url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Donald+Trump+on+road+safety]This is Graham. He wants to teach you about road safety
Graham - the unforgettable face of Australian road safety - BBC News
Donald Trump accepts nomination: 'Safety will be restored' – as it ...
Meet Graham, the key figure in a new road safety campaign in ...
Road safety advert 'blames CYCLISTS for being run over by lorries ...
Victoria's new road safety ambassador Graham with the body to ...
Cyclists hit back at latest 'victim-blaming' road safety campaign which ...
Okay, so Donald Trump doesn't have a road safety policy at all.

The search results that mention the candidates and road safety are lists of articles on news sites in other countries.

Three trillion* vehicle miles travelled in 2014. [url=https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data]According to the EPA, 14% of global CO2 emissions are from transport and 16% of global CO2 emissions are from the USA
, but that's not splitting road, rail, water and air. The Department of Transportation's MOBILE 6.2 model, used by regional governments to model air quality, uses a fleet average (all cars, old and new) of 20.3 mpg giving around 0.44 kg of CO2 per mile. 1331.44 billion kg, 1331.44 million tonnes, of CO2 if they're all cars. More if there are any trucks on the roads. That may be of interest to people in Charleston, Oakland or, y'know, New Orleans.

* US trillion, UK billion. What you call a billion we used to call a milliard. Perfectly good word.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:13 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Thanks for convincing me to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson but you, and people like you, have pushed me over the edge this week.
If you're a creature of so little conviction that you'd swap candidates just to try and punish us, then maybe Trump should have been your first choice?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:28 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Or ... Pressure was applied somewhere to trigger an investigation in the hope of digging up dirt that would make Hillary lose the election, he got landed with the job of looking for it...
Yeah, that's pretty much the first scenario, but then
Sableagle wrote:At that point, Comey ..... {one month delay here, it seems} ..... told Congress...
it's this part that raises the question. After a one month delay (your claim; I did not verify), he chooses to release this statement one week before the election instead of waiting another week.

So... rock-and-a-hard-place, or tin hat territory?

We already know that government is not pure as the driven snow, and I don't think anybody expects that. "Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity" is a good rule of thumb, but if the stakes are high enough, it's great cover too.

Personally, my rule of thumb is to discount revelations that come out this close to an important election, just because the relative speeds of lies and truth are too tempting, and politics is dirty enough for it.

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 * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:05 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Personally, my rule of thumb is to discount revelations that come out this close to an important election, just because the relative speeds of lies and truth are too tempting, and politics is dirty enough for it.

Jose
Well, now, that's partway to the second scenario, isn't it?

It doesn't all have to be a conspiracy for someone to take an opportunity. Cheney didn't have to have planned 9/11 to use it to give Iraqi oilfield contracts to Halliburton.

As for exactly what went on inside his head, well, I wouldn't know. I wasn't there.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

ucim wrote:So... rock-and-a-hard-place, or tin hat territory?
It's like Schrodinger's cat, you'll never know if you can't look in the box.
Sableagle wrote:Putting American lives at risk?
Like most of Hillary's problems this is a self inflicted wound. There couldn't have been an investigation of the issue if her email had been one marked StateDepartment.gov or whatever it is.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
ucim wrote:Personally, my rule of thumb is to discount revelations that come out this close to an important election, just because the relative speeds of lies and truth are too tempting, and politics is dirty enough for it.
Well, now, that's partway to the second scenario, isn't it?
Yup. Truth usually lies somewhere in between. When something comes out this close to the election, I treat it as unverified and unverifiable (since it's too close to the deadline) rumour, and give it appropriate credence. No tin hat necessary.

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 * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Weeks » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

Guys if Donald Duck wins the election you're going to be so angry, haha.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

If you assume Nevada is in the bag for Clinton, how much does that improve her odds of being president? 2 percent. :-(
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has ... st-nevada/

mcd001
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:26 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:1. You blew your cover because you felt like whining on a forum post. Good job demonstrating your dedication to your clearance.

2. You are demonstrating why the American people are distrustworthy of "elitist" Washington Insiders, pretending that your clearance gives you a better opinion in this election than others. This is an unnecessary black mark upon "those of you" with clearances and you are not doing a good job representing them.

--------

Make a point without leaning on your background or security clearance. If you know the issues, I'm sure you'd be able to. But pulling out this card is supremely immature in many respects, most important professionally. Unless you really think its cool to brag about your security clearance on social networking sites to make a political point?

I doubt your boss would appreciate your decision right now, especially if you were going to rage-quit this forum anyway. Try not to do anything bad for your career on your way out.

It seems like you might have the impression that the fact that someone has a security clearance is or should be some kind of secret, which is not the case. There is nothing wrong with revealing this fact, in person or on this forum. I believe the point trmpb6 was trying making is that security clearance holders have the responsibility to protect the information they have access to. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State was well aware of this responsibility and chose to ignore it. Her claims of ignorance to that basic responsibility ring false in the ears of anyone who has ever worked with government secrets.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

Which is why the intelligence community has largely denounced Hillary, and--

Oh, wait -- no, pardon; that's *Trump*.

Do you know how many politicians have had private email servers? That doesn't make it right, but it makes it clear that anyone who thinks the Hillary email situation is unique hasn't been paying attention.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

Guess what's in the new emails? Nothing interesting. Called it?

I swear, if HRC loses behind this, it will be the dumbest thing to swing a US election since...l guess since all those Floridians accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:52 pm UTC

With two days to go I wonder if that's enough time for the damage to get undone at all. I'm guessing, not really. This has kept Clinton in the press in a bad light for a week.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

I didn't expect it to get done so soon but that just makes it more ridiculous. Anyway I suspect the damage won't be fully repaired in two day and it will keep EMAILS the topic for the remaining time so I guess it will depend on the articles. (Though I guess some people might be motivated to vote because they are annoyed by this.)

I think someone here said that he wrote the letter must mean he has something big, yeah… no.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:1. You blew your cover because you felt like whining on a forum post. Good job demonstrating your dedication to your clearance.
2. You are demonstrating why the American people are distrustworthy of "elitist" Washington Insiders, pretending that your clearance gives you a better opinion in this election than others. This is an unnecessary black mark upon "those of you" with clearances and you are not doing a good job representing them.
--------
Make a point without leaning on your background or security clearance. If you know the issues, I'm sure you'd be able to. But pulling out this card is supremely immature in many respects, most important professionally. Unless you really think its cool to brag about your security clearance on social networking sites to make a political point?
I doubt your boss would appreciate your decision right now, especially if you were going to rage-quit this forum anyway. Try not to do anything bad for your career on your way out.

It seems like you might have the impression that the fact that someone has a security clearance is or should be some kind of secret, which is not the case. There is nothing wrong with revealing this fact, in person or on this forum. I believe the point trmpb6 was trying making is that security clearance holders have the responsibility to protect the information they have access to. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State was well aware of this responsibility and chose to ignore it. Her claims of ignorance to that basic responsibility ring false in the ears of anyone who has ever worked with government secrets.

The masses who have security clearance now, (because of the excess classification of unnecessary documents) really debases the sacredness of having such a clearance. It be like taking the stats that concealed gun permit holders have an excellent gun safety record, then making everyone a concealed gun permit holder. The numbers and quality of the participant just isn't going to hold.

Nate just called out HuffPo for their "fucking idiotic and irresponsible" model. Oh shit, tweet storm chaining into a smackdown.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/n ... ter-230815
Nate Silver unloaded Saturday on the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, who accused the polling guru and founder of the prediction website fivethirtyeight.com of “changing the results of polls to fit where he thinks the polls truly are, rather than simply entering the poll numbers into his model and crunching them.”
Rather than taking a simple average -- like RealClearPolitics does -- Silver’s model weights polls by his team’s assessment of their quality, and also performs several “adjustments” to account for things like the partisan “lean” of a pollster or the trend lines across different polls.
According to Grim, however, Silver is “just guessing” and his “trend line adjustment” technique is “merely political punditry dressed up as sophisticated mathematical modeling.” Grim also noted that FiveThirtyEight’s model -- due to his adjustments -- shows Trump more likely than not to win Florida, while the Huffington Post’s calculates her victory there as more likely.
And that, apparently, enraged Silver, whose track record of correctly predicting elections -- and explaining how he does it in painstaking, but accessible detail -- has made him a celebrity whose very name is synonymous with the art of data-driven prognostication, and whose model is widely considered the gold standard in election forecasting.
After dropping his initial f-bomb, Silver went on to argue why his model -- which, in its polls-only version, puts the odds of Hillary Clinton winning the presidential race at 64.7 percent -- is superior to those like the Huffington Post, which rates her election a near-certainty, at 98.3 percent.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Guess what's in the new emails? Nothing interesting. Called it?

I swear, if HRC loses behind this, it will be the dumbest thing to swing a US election since...l guess since all those Floridians accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.


I haven't listened to any reactions from the right, but let me guess: Comey is a shill for Hillary/afraid Hillary will kill him.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:27 pm UTC

10 bucks says at least one pro-Trump commentator goes on about how it's impossible to review that many emails that quickly.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Lets see... calling Comey a traitor. Hoping someone releases the e-mails (NYPD? FOIA in two days?). Claiming the FBI is actually after the Clinton Foundation (secretly)...

The Great Hippo wrote:
10 bucks says at least one pro-Trump commentator goes on about how it's impossible to review that many emails that quickly.
Damn, that too.

Man, election night is gonna be fun to watch that sub on Reddit.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:03 pm UTC

Apparently Trump's speech today was so full of bullshit, his campaign executive's pants were literally on fire while they were feeding the speech into the teleprompter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

Still the funniest news about Trump in the past day or two is that his campaign has literally taken away his Twitter account.

Can't even be trusted with a Twitter account.

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:31 pm UTC

According to that article they've pretty much been baby-sitting him for the last week.

This is a man running for president.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva and 30 guests