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
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 Nov 06, 2016 10:50 pm UTC

That article was pretty funny.

Goddammit Comey.

My mom and I just wrapped up canvassing to GOTV. I was very reassured by how many people had already voted. Apparently my county (Orange County, NC) has the highest number of active Democratic volunteers in the country. We were canvassing in a neighboring county.
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.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:03 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote: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.

Nothing wrong with having a private email account, as long as you don't send classified, sensitive or FOUO information through it.

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 11:27 pm UTC

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.
When you're right, you're right.

Hint: most of them were duplicates, which can be detected by a computer. As for the rest, I have only sympathy for the team of schlubs who have no doubt been working around the clock reading emails that say things like "hey, can you find out if wjc wants chicken or beef for that dinner on Tuesday?"
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:08 am UTC

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

This is a man running for president.

The thing is, it's a smart play. They can't get Trump to respond to trolls they take away his Twitter. He's risen in the polls because of this.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:21 am UTC

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

This is a man running for president.

The thing is, it's a smart play. They can't get Trump to respond to trolls they take away his Twitter. He's risen in the polls because of this.
Yes, when your candidate is an idiot, your best play is probably to stop him from talking.

Crazy lines to vote over the weekend, apparently.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:25 am UTC

This is business as usual. Nothing in a campaign is allowed to be extemporaneous. It's punished by the electorate. It means that Trump is learning.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:28 am UTC

mcd001 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote: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.

Nothing wrong with having a private email account, as long as you don't send classified, sensitive or FOUO information through it.
Allow me to rephrase:

Do you know how many politicians have had private email servers and sent classified, sensitive information through them? 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
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 Nov 07, 2016 12:40 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
sardia wrote:
Mutex wrote:According to that article they've pretty much been baby-sitting him for the last week.

This is a man running for president.

The thing is, it's a smart play. They can't get Drumpf to respond to trolls they take away his Twitter. He's risen in the polls because of this.
Yes, when your candidate is an idiot, your best play is probably to stop him from talking.

Crazy lines to vote over the weekend, apparently.

The people I talked to that voted early yesterday said there were massive lines, which is great, except probably indicative of not many polling locations. The county where I went to uni only had one early voting location for the 3rd-biggest city in the state (courtesy of Republicans).
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
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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:12 am UTC

Liri wrote:The people I talked to that voted early yesterday said there were massive lines, which is great, except probably indicative of not many polling locations. The county where I went to uni only had one early voting location for the 3rd-biggest city in the state (courtesy of Republicans).
That's fucked up, yo.

Call me crazy, but I've always felt that in a democracy, the goal of your electoral policy should be that anybody who is eligible and can be bothered to turn up at a polling station or fill in a mail-in ballot gets to vote. If people are giving up because the line is too long, you failed. And it makes me really upset when that's treated like a partisan talking point.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:15 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Do you know how many politicians have had private email servers and sent classified,
I couldn't find any other than Jeb Bush when he was Governor. Did you have anyone that you can cite. Powell used a private email address but I've never heard that he transmitted classified documents over it. Or ran his own server.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:25 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Do you know how many politicians have had private email servers and sent classified,
I couldn't find any other than Jeb Bush when he was Governor. Did you have anyone that you can cite. Powell used a private email address but I've never heard that he transmitted classified documents over it. Or ran his own server.
Off the top of my head? Jason Chaffetz. George W. Bush also famously lost a bunch of emails dated during the leadup to the Iraq War, but I don't know if those were, in fact, classified.

(Bush didn't own the email server; the Republican party did -- but that's still a private email server, and still the same class of problem.)
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:26 am UTC

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

This is a man running for president.

Baby-sitting him how? He still held 3 rallies a day like always.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:32 am UTC

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

This is a man running for president.

Baby-sitting him how? He still held 3 rallies a day like always.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/they-f ... 1788636451
No more twitter, and you can tell he's sticking to his teleprompter now. Winning the presidency with a week to go is one hell of a carrot, and it could even cow someone of Trump size arrogance. You know, just the bare minimum that any candidate should ever stick to.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:03 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:[Off the top of my head? Jason Chaffetz. George W. Bush also famously lost a bunch of emails dated during the leadup to the Iraq War, but I don't know if those were, in fact, classified.

(Bush didn't own the email server; the Republican party did -- but that's still a private email server, and still the same class of problem.)
Right, ok I just thought I'd check.

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 Nov 07, 2016 2:15 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Liri wrote:The people I talked to that voted early yesterday said there were massive lines, which is great, except probably indicative of not many polling locations. The county where I went to uni only had one early voting location for the 3rd-biggest city in the state (courtesy of Republicans).
That's fucked up, yo.

Call me crazy, but I've always felt that in a democracy, the goal of your electoral policy should be that anybody who is eligible and can be bothered to turn up at a polling station or fill in a mail-in ballot gets to vote. If people are giving up because the line is too long, you failed. And it makes me really upset when that's treated like a partisan talking point.

Yeah, exactly. When one party has to actively suppress people voting in order to stay in power, it's clear that staying in power is their only actual goal. How can anyone trying to stop their constituents from voting possibly justify it to themselves any other way? It's depressing and disturbing.

Sure, the Electoral College is weird, our FPTP voting system isn't great, there's Gerrymandering all over the place, but if election reform people really want to do something tangible, they need to take a solid voting suppression case to the Supreme Court, since that's the only way to get anything done these days.


The distinction about Clinton having her own server is really a pointless one. All her actions would be equally avoiding the rules if she used Gmail as opposed to the server that her husband already had set up, it just sounds worse.
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.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:31 am UTC

Liri wrote:Yeah, exactly. When one party has to actively suppress people voting in order to stay in power, it's clear that staying in power is their only actual goal. How can anyone trying to stop their constituents from voting possibly justify it to themselves any other way? It's depressing and disturbing.

Unless they are cutting early voting polls, it is inaccurate to equate long lines for early voting to suppressing voting. Early voting polls are relatively recent and were adopted to enable more participation not reduce it. Voter suppression measures are ones that reduce peoples ability to vote not ones that increase it less than we would like.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6581
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:39 am UTC

Republicans in Ohio passed laws specifically to limit early voting

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us ... tates.html
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:54 am UTC

Well, I retract any objection to characterizing it as suppression. I've seen pretty long lines in my area around lunchtime and I assume by extension there are long lines over the weekends so I just assumed it was like that.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:01 am UTC

idonno wrote:Unless they are cutting early voting polls, it is inaccurate to equate long lines for early voting to suppressing voting. Early voting polls are relatively recent and were adopted to enable more participation not reduce it. Voter suppression measures are ones that reduce peoples ability to vote not ones that increase it less than we would like.
If you couldn't vote before because of Circumstances -- then someone adjusts things so Circumstances no longer stop you from voting -- they've enabled you to vote. If I then come in and re-adjust things so that Circumstances once again prevent you from voting, I have now suppressed your vote.

Similarly, if you're drowning and I throw you a flotation device -- then promptly snatch that flotation device away -- I have now become one of the reasons you are drowning.

EDIT: Oops, missed your reply to Thesh.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:36 am UTC

Look, lets not bicker and argue about who suppressed who. Point is: if your electoral policy is not designed to maximize turnout, then fuck you.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:24 am UTC

Absolutely.

So you believe in liberal democracy so much you're prepared to spend billions invading a country to set a people free from fascist dictatorship - yet you don't believe in it enough to give your electorate a public holiday to encourage them to go and vote..?

Politicians the world over only believe in the institutions of liberal democracy when it suits them. Take the UK PM's refusal to condemn attacks on the judiciary - where papers were calling them 'enemies of the people' and attacking their sexuality. May refused to condemn the attacks, instead choosing to emphasise 'a right to free speech'...

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 Nov 07, 2016 1:14 pm UTC

North Carolina has an all-time high early vote turnout, largely driven by (unaffiliated) Millennials. The lack of party ID is a little unsettling, but I was unaffiliated myself until last year. I'm hopeful.
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.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:25 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Off the top of my head? Jason Chaffetz.

Please go back and read the link you provided. First, Chaffetz apparently has a gmail account. How is that running his own email server? As for sending classified emails over it, all we have is this statement from the article:

“The irony is unparalleled- Representative Chaffetz, the person who led the charge against Secretary Clinton’s personal email server use, could actually be the one who is breaking the law and putting our national security at risk in the process.”

He could actually be breaking the law? Really? Could be? And who is it making this, um, serious allegation? Why, it's a group called the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. (No bias there!)

Maybe I should start linking to articles from Breitbart or Drudge. Because, you know, no bias.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:47 pm UTC

To be perfectly clear, it's no better to send classified information via a state.gov or mail.mil account than it is a private email server. It's the exact same security violation either way. And yes, accidental spillage is handled administratively, not criminally. Just like all the experts have been saying.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:04 pm UTC

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/#more-18522 some explanation to the model of pec, I found it interesting especially the small table how the error estimate influences the calculated win probability.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

Liri wrote:North Carolina has an all-time high early vote turnout, largely driven by (unaffiliated) Millennials. The lack of party ID is a little unsettling, but I was unaffiliated myself until last year. I'm hopeful.

I've always been unsettled by the presence of documented party affiliation upon voter-registrations. Necessary for the "our party only" primary voting (to replace the paid-for party membership that we have, in rough analogue, to try to ensure the party is guided only by the faithful) but still distinctly evokes a feeling of a "my party, right or wrong" attitude. Independents, who vote their true (malleable and dynamic) consciences each and every time, is surely the better way to guide things, and possibly even dilutes any gerrymandering attempts.

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:36 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Look, lets not bicker and argue about who suppressed who. Point is: if your electoral policy is not designed to maximize turnout, then fuck you.
Yea, but Republicans are the ones with those policies... Democrats benefit from increased turnout, so even if you argue they do it for purely selfish reasons, they nearly unilaterally support better access to voting.

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 Nov 07, 2016 3:29 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Liri wrote:North Carolina has an all-time high early vote turnout, largely driven by (unaffiliated) Millennials. The lack of party ID is a little unsettling, but I was unaffiliated myself until last year. I'm hopeful.

I've always been unsettled by the presence of documented party affiliation upon voter-registrations. Necessary for the "our party only" primary voting (to replace the paid-for party membership that we have, in rough analogue, to try to ensure the party is guided only by the faithful) but still distinctly evokes a feeling of a "my party, right or wrong" attitude. Independents, who vote their true (malleable and dynamic) consciences each and every time, is surely the better way to guide things, and possibly even dilutes any gerrymandering attempts.

Yeah, I agree with that, I just meant for the purposes of predicting this election.

It bothers me a lot how Republicans have sort of co-opted their party name to mean American and of their ideology to be the only patriotic one. How many Democrats do you know with a US flag hanging outside their house? I hate feeling ashamed and uncomfortable whenever I see my own damn flag.
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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6581
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:51 pm UTC

Liri wrote:It bothers me a lot how Republicans have sort of co-opted their party name to mean American and of their ideology to be the only patriotic one. How many Democrats do you know with a US flag hanging outside their house? I hate feeling ashamed and uncomfortable whenever I see my own damn flag.


I don't see very many people on either side with a flag out. I don't fly one because the flag has no meaning to me - what I feel is most important is not America, the country, it's not America, the conceptual fantasy (aka the Republican view), it's people regardless of borders. My problem is that every single Republican Party policy is measured in the vacuum of the conceptual fantasy, with no concern for consequences (which are typically denied - "monopolies just cannot exist without government, it's impossible in a free market."). Pragmatism, the impact on people, etc. have no bearing.

Those who use the words "Real America" or "America" when referring to something other than the people of America that exist today, should be publicly called out as ideologues.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Whizbang » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

It comes as no surprise that Conservatives, almost entirely made up of "deeply" religious, have a hard time separating the ideal from the real. I am not saying anything new here, but I like to highlight it from time to time. Over and over again we see this divide in all sorts of fields of study. Take Philosophy and Science. Used to be that it was widely believed that all one needed to solve the world's mysteries was the rules of logic and a mind devoted to them. Then came Philosophical Naturalism that said "Wait, we should test our conclusions against the real world!" and philosophers the world over lost their minds. This goes on today in the current debate over Climate Change and Evolution. Then there is the Theist/Atheist debate which finds itself in the same situation, though the positive claim is made by the other side. One side argues from a strictly philosophical stance (flawed though it may be) trying to come up with clever proofs using logic, whereas the other side says the proof is in the pudding evidence.

It is no surprise that these same people bring the same fundamental disconnect to the table of politics, drawing thick borders around things that are really just useful labels to facilitate communication and practical action, but are not "things" in the mundane sense of the word and instead are just abstract concepts.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8534
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

It's true that when looking at religious people, more of them are Republicans than Democrats. But that's a simplistic view of reality. First, the vast majority of Americans identify as religious (around 70%), and a lot of Democrats fall in that group. Second, even within religious-only groups, the percentage of Democrats is not far from Republicans - roughly 45% of those who identify as religious define themselves as Republican or Republican-leaning, and almost 39% of them define themselves as Democrat or Democrat-leaning.

It's simply incorrect to say religious = conservative = Republican. It's true, though, that more Atheists are democratic (29% Rep, 52% Dem), but those comprise only 30% total of the population.

This remains fairly consistent if you look at specific religions, but obviously the analysis becomes more complex.

Source
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:37 pm UTC

I'd love to see the results by religion as well. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and so forth.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6581
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:It's simply incorrect to say religious = conservative = Republican. It's true, though, that more Atheists are democratic (29% Rep, 52% Dem), but those comprise only 30% total of the population.


Part of that is also skewed by race. According to your link, 64% of white Americans who say they are "very religious" are Republicans, and 25% are Democrats, while it is 51% vs 36% of White Americans who describe themselves as "Moderately Religious". You're right that you can't say a religious person is a conservative is a Republican, but religion has been the largest factor in developing Republican social policy, and a major contributor to their economic and foreign policy.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:To be perfectly clear, it's no better to send classified information via a state.gov or mail.mil account than it is a private email server. It's the exact same security violation either way.

Yes, someone who gets it! Classified material is supposed to remain within classified channels. Even a .gov or .mil email account is not supposed to be a conduit for such information.

JudeMorrigan wrote: And yes, accidental spillage is handled administratively, not criminally. Just like all the experts have been saying.

But then, a private email server doesn't just 'accidentally' set itself up. Based on the evidence I've seen, Ms. Clinton's private server was a deliberate ploy on her part to circumvent FOIA requirements.

I realize people on this forum have already made up their minds about the criminality or innocence of Ms. Clinton's emails; I only chimed in because of Great Hippo's implication that lots of politicians have done it.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Whizbang » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Stuff


You're right, of course. I blame Jodi Foster the Presidential Election for my error in thinking/speaking. I was attempting to highlight the problem many people have with separating the abstract concept from the real thing, and even worse, binding up their emotions to the concept at the cost of their understanding and appreciation of the real thing. This is, of course, not limited to religious conservatives nor are all religious conservatives this way (???), but enough of them are to be a useful example of the point I wanted to make. Many people have a very difficult time setting aside abstract labels in favor of discussing the thing itself. Many even have a difficult time identifying or understanding that the label is blocking them from addressing the reality. They are not seeing the trees for the forest.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6581
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:03 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote: Based on the evidence I've seen, Ms. Clinton's private server was a deliberate ploy on her part to circumvent FOIA requirements.


This is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats that I have seen this year, although it does occur on all sides, this election we have seen this non-stop from the right: conflating conjecture with evidence, as long as it fits with your ideology. There is absolutely no actual evidence that this is the case, but as long as that fits with their narrative, then no evidence is all the evidence that is required.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8534
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'd love to see the results by religion as well. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and so forth.

There you go.. I wish they showed for each group what percentage of the population they comprise, as well. This is based on a 2014 survey, apparently.

Thesh wrote:You're right that you can't say a religious person is a conservative is a Republican, but religion has been the largest factor in developing Republican social policy, and a major contributor to their economic and foreign policy.

That's a different question, though - "What basis do you use for your political beliefs" might be answered differently by Democrats or Republicans, and doesn't necessarily correlate with religion. Although I doubt many non-religious people would say they base their political agendas on religion, I don't think all religious people would answer that their religion dictates their agenda.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6581
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:14 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Thesh wrote:You're right that you can't say a religious person is a conservative is a Republican, but religion has been the largest factor in developing Republican social policy, and a major contributor to their economic and foreign policy.

That's a different question, though - "What basis do you use for your political beliefs" might be answered differently by Democrats or Republicans, and doesn't necessarily correlate with religion. Although I doubt many non-religious people would say they base their political agendas on religion, I don't think all religious people would answer that their religion dictates their agenda.


Sorry for the confusion, I was responding in the context of why the Republican party seems to be made up of ideologues rather than pragmatists, and I agree with Whizbang that being more religious has a lot to do with it.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Sorry for the confusion, I was responding in the context of why the Republican party seems to be made up of ideologues rather than pragmatists


Mostly because you disagree with them. I guarantee you that plenty of conservatives would make a similar observation about Democrats.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:To be perfectly clear, it's no better to send classified information via a state.gov or mail.mil account than it is a private email server. It's the exact same security violation either way.

Yes, someone who gets it! Classified material is supposed to remain within classified channels. Even a .gov or .mil email account is not supposed to be a conduit for such information.

JudeMorrigan wrote: And yes, accidental spillage is handled administratively, not criminally. Just like all the experts have been saying.

But then, a private email server doesn't just 'accidentally' set itself up. Based on the evidence I've seen, Ms. Clinton's private server was a deliberate ploy on her part to circumvent FOIA requirements.

I realize people on this forum have already made up their minds about the criminality or innocence of Ms. Clinton's emails; I only chimed in because of Great Hippo's implication that lots of politicians have done it.

Based on the foia laws, Congress purposely wrote them so that they were excluded from the law. It's a deliberate ploy to circumvent transparency in governance.

Latest Senate report just came in, the Democrats are less likely to Win the majority INB the Senate, 45%. That's really bad since the GOP can just stall for two years, and get their seats back during the mid terms.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zohar and 13 guests