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
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 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

The server was set up, pretty clearly, because they couldn't get government IT to set up a secure blackberry for the Secretary of State with the capabilities she wanted.

It was a different department. So they got things done by using the tools they had on hand.

Nobody disputes that 99.9% of the emails where not confidential. A small portion of emails contained *sections* that where confidential, but the email itself wasn't marked confidential. A small portion of emails where, after being reviewed, declared to contain some confidential or higher content.

The accidental part would be using that account for *those* emails, not setting up the email server itself (which pre-existed Hillary as Sec of State), or using it.

A small percentage of emails inadequitely marked as confidential, plus some content that was later classified, is consistent with it being accidental. The motivation (that government IT wasn't supplying her needs) is ridiculously plausible.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

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

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:
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.


Not at all, I was raised a Republican, and I abandoned them because their policies are not pragmatic. Here are the stances the elected Republicans have actually taken on issues.

Republicans: Tax cuts always grow the economy and increase revenue.
Democrats: Taxes should be based on expenditures

Republicans: Less regulation is always better than more regulation.
Democrats: Things should be regulated if things need regulation.

Republicans: Government is inherently evil, therefore nothing bad will happen from completely shutting it down.
Democrats: Government is neither good nor evil, but provides a lot of necessary services society and our economy rely upon.

Republicans: The Affordable Care Act is all bad, repeal it
Democrats: Repealing The Affordable Care Act is going to leave millions without insurance, and The Affordable Care Act fixes a lot of problems - let's fix the flaws rather than just throwing things out without concern.

Republicans: Democrats aren't allowed to run the government anymore.
Democrats: This is a decision that should be left up to the voters.

Tell me, where are the equivalents on the Democratic side? I'm not talking about fringe Democrats or fringe Republicans, but I'm talking about the actual policies that our Republican leaders have implemented, while Republicans cheered them on. Tell me an actual position the Democrats have taken which was purely based on ideology and that wasn't a pragmatic solution to a goal that was based on their ideology. Tell me a situation in which the Democrats have chosen to shut down the government and harm the economy rather than let a majority Republican government pass a budget that they don't agree with, while their voters cheered them on. These are actions born purely out of ideology, from a party that has chosen to dismiss any facts or experts that disagree with them. Pragmatic is no longer a word in the Republican dictionary.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:13 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.

The spillage wasn't the private server being set up. It was when she or her employees sent classified information over insecure channels. And there's no reason at all to believe that that was intentional. Don't get me wrong - it's still bad. But it's the sort of thing that would get a response ranging from a dressing down by a superior to an Article 15 hearing, depending on the specifics. Not sent to jail.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

Thesh wrote: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.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. What she did has been judged legal, by Comey, who didn't refer it for prosecution. But he announced it in a manner that effectively said, she was dirty, just not dirty enough to prosecute. At best it was foolish, a point of view shared by various people in the leaked emails. It opened her up to attacks. And depending on how it breaks tomorrow it could cost her the election.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Thesh wrote: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.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. What she did has been judged legal, by Comey, who didn't refer it for prosecution. But he announced it in a manner that effectively said, she was dirty, just not dirty enough to prosecute. At best it was foolish, a point of view shared by various people in the leaked emails. It opened her up to attacks. And depending on how it breaks tomorrow it could cost her the election.


I think you misread by post. That was in response to mcd001 telling us what Clinton's motives are without any evidence to suggest it (in fact, it doesn't make sense as a motive at any level).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Trump didn't say they wanted it; he said they let him get away with it. Because he's rich; because he's a celebrity. Because they really have very little other choice. He's not claiming they consent; he's claiming they keep their mouths shut.

Sounds like he is probably claiming they consent...

Feel free to argue otherwise but I don't think the general population agrees, it's too much of a stretch to assume


Agreed. It requires interpreting everything in the worst possible light to get that interpretation.

But even if it's bragging, it's still pretty crass. And one can reasonably assume that Trump's opinion of his desirability is inflated, and that much of his behavior towards women is awful. You don't need a confession to come to that conclusion. Just listening to the guy talk is enough to give you an idea of his views towards women.

SDK wrote:Affirmative consent is great, but that's not how the world worked even a few years ago. If they never said no, he's not guilty of sexual assault. (Just to be clear, they probably did say no, at least in a few cases based on all the other evidence, but Trump did not admit to that)


Precisely. Admit? No. Actually a bad person anyways? Oh, sure.

Just because a person hasn't confessed/been found guilty in court doesn't make them *actually* innocent, even if the legal system is required to treat them as such.

ucim wrote:The legality [of the pussy-grabbing] isn't even all that important... what's important is that it's yet another indication of how Trump thinks of the people around him. Tools to be used for his pleasure. Subjects to submit to his will. And he expects as much.

This will be our position to him as the governed, should he win.

Jose


Yes. Seeing how someone's mind works is quite useful, and windows like these tell us a great deal. I would *love* to have a presidential candidate that didn't view themselves as above us, and playing by a different set of rules.

Diadem wrote:How did the FBI become so pro-Trump? That's kind of weird.


I agree. I mean, I'd expect there to be *some* preferences here and there, because that's true of anything, but why Trump in particular? Why would he be *more* attractive to them than past republican candidates? That seems odd to me as well. Yeah, I can buy a general law enforcement/military lean to the right, there's a history of that. But why more now? And why the FBI, in particular? Federal law enforcement is historically MORE distrusted than local or military by Republicans. It seems like an odd pairing.

As far as models go, I think Fivethirtyeight's is pretty useful. Not merely because of the specific math chosen, but because of the transparency, and the effort they put into communicating about it to the public. There's really no substitute for understanding, and while they're not perfect, they generally try to support that, whereas many other sources use polls and models as shock headlines and little more. No model is perfect, but some models are useful.

KnightExemplar wrote:
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.


While that post is kind of a dumpster fire, this complaint is invalid. The fact that someone has a clearance is not itself necessarily covert. For an on-topic instance, we all know the president will have access to such information. Shitty opsec, though, if true.

ucim wrote: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.


It's also close enough that we really *can't* know the whole story. There simply isn't sufficient time left to go through everything with due process. Investigations are slow.

It is convenient for one faction, and it's really hard to overlook that. However, convenience is not necessarily the same as falsehood. Ultimately, though, if we look strictly at Hillary with regards to what's known, it mostly just confirms already known things. Yeah, she ran an email server, shittily, and gave zero craps about policy, transparency, record management, etc. Unless I've missed something particularly big, nobody has an amazing smoking gun about what Clinton actually did that's new.

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.


They're not wrong. It took a vastly longer time to investigate emails thus far, so we can't reasonably expect to know everything in literally days. Sure, you can do some quick searches and what not, but that's not necessarily going to find everything.

Which is, of course, part of what makes the timing convenient. If there *is* no smoking gun, releasing it late is advantageous, yes? Create doubt and concern at the last minute. If you actually have a smoking gun, you probably want that to be found.

As I said before, merely being convenient isn't a certainty of it being nothing, but it should encourage one to cast a skeptical eye on it, at least.

Liri wrote: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.


Eh, it squarely puts all the responsibility on them. If you have a gmail account, and claim a whole pile of missing emails due to failure, well, that's on the service provider to some degree. And probably verifiable. Yeah, both are definitely against policy, but having your own server does make the transparency issue worse.

That said, I'm with you in that others who have behaved similarly should also be pursued, gmail or not. It's only fair. If someone actually values those ideals, rather than partisanship, everyone should be dealt with.

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.


Eh, Democrats let that happen. Chants of "USA, USA" pretty much guarantee you're at a republican shindig. Democrats have treated patriotism as something to be vaguely ashamed of for some time now. They're much more comfortable pointing out American flaws than celebrating successes. Republicans, the reverse.

There's merit to each thing, of course, but it does seem like halo effects apply, and the two are to some degree exclusive in the public mind.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
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.


Surprised that Witnesses are mostly independent and not Republican. Well, maybe not that surprised. Wished they'd break out Jewish into Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, since they tend to vote differently.

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 6:42 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Tell me an actual position the Democrats have taken which was purely based on ideology and that wasn't a pragmatic solution to a goal that was based on their ideology.

Definitely some truth to your point, but I would argue a lot of Democrat's environmentalist policies are ideological and not pragmatic, often even hurting environmentalist goals. Keystone Pipeline being the most recent example but I can think of more.
lol everything matters
-Ed

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

Thesh wrote: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.

No evidence?
- It is a fact that Ms. Clinton stated she had turned over all work-related emails, as required by law. She turned over approximately 30,000 of the emails and deleted the rest, claiming they were personal. The FBI subsequently found several thousand work-related emails among those that were deleted.
- It is a fact that classified data was found in the emails deleted from Ms. Clinton's server, including some containing secret and top secret information.
- It is a fact that Ms. Clinton was aware of government regulations regarding email storage and retention as early as 20 June 2007, because she publicly criticized the Bush administration for deleting emails from private email accounts before investigators could seize them. She said: “Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts .... It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok.”

Ya think?

Sorry, it strains the bounds of credulity for me to believe all this was just an honest mistake. It would require a breath-taking degree of ignorance and incompetence on Ms. Clinton's part, and whatever else I may think of her, she doesn't strike me as being either ignorant or incompetent.

Be honest: If this whole thing had come down the exact same way, but with a Republican Secretary of State, would you still be insisting there was no evidence of any wrong-doing? Or would you be claiming it was a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok...?

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 6:45 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Be honest: If this whole thing had come down the exact same way, but with a Republican Secretary of State, would you still be insisting there was no evidence of any wrong-doing? Or would you be claiming it was a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok...?
Yes. I would be insisting that there was no evidence of any wrong-doing. So would, I imagine, most people here.

There are not many political ideologues in this thread.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:48 pm UTC

In fairness, Clinton is arguing that she just happened to have made many decisions that are incredibly convenient to her defense. The implication that there's at least some degree of intent here in pursuit of secrecy is pretty reasonable.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:
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.


Not at all, I was raised a Republican, and I abandoned them because their policies are not pragmatic. Here are the stances the elected Republicans have actually taken on issues.

Republicans: Tax cuts always grow the economy and increase revenue.
Democrats: Taxes should be based on expenditures

Republicans: Less regulation is always better than more regulation.
Democrats: Things should be regulated if things need regulation.

Republicans: Government is inherently evil, therefore nothing bad will happen from completely shutting it down.
Democrats: Government is neither good nor evil, but provides a lot of necessary services society and our economy rely upon.

Republicans: The Affordable Care Act is all bad, repeal it
Democrats: Repealing The Affordable Care Act is going to leave millions without insurance, and The Affordable Care Act fixes a lot of problems - let's fix the flaws rather than just throwing things out without concern.

Republicans: Democrats aren't allowed to run the government anymore.
Democrats: This is a decision that should be left up to the voters.

Tell me, where are the equivalents on the Democratic side? I'm not talking about fringe Democrats or fringe Republicans, but I'm talking about the actual policies that our Republican leaders have implemented, while Republicans cheered them on. Tell me an actual position the Democrats have taken which was purely based on ideology and that wasn't a pragmatic solution to a goal that was based on their ideology. Tell me a situation in which the Democrats have chosen to shut down the government and harm the economy rather than let a majority Republican government pass a budget that they don't agree with, while their voters cheered them on. These are actions born purely out of ideology, from a party that has chosen to dismiss any facts or experts that disagree with them. Pragmatic is no longer a word in the Republican dictionary.


You're getting it backwards. I'm not claiming that the Democrats are ideologues. I'm claiming the Republicans aren't. The non-strawman versions of your cited Republican positions are:
Lower taxes *than what we have now* will grow the economy and increase revenue.
Less regulation *than what we have now* is better than the status quo.
The government *as is* does enough things it shouldn't that a brief "shutdown" isn't such a big concern.
The Affordable Care Act is all bad, repeal it.
We will use all measures available within the system to pursue our platform (which usually requires blocking the Democrats' platform).

Obviously you can find sound-bites of politicians on both sides giving oversimplified arguments about issues, and there are plenty of not-so-bright partisans that will treat that as though its the entire fleshed out argument. The smarter partisans will fill in the gaps in their own party's soundbites to recognize the cogent argument behind them, but won't give the same courtesy to the other party. But the reality is that there are reasonable arguments to be found on both sides of nearly every issue, if you're willing to sift through all the idiocy that gets attention.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Both parties have ideologues and pragmatists, and various varieties in between.

Note that pragmatic does not always mean "willing to compromise". It only does so when compromise is effective. This is negotiation 101, if the negotiated solution is worse than your best non-negotiated solution...you don't take the offer. Democratic ideology believed that Republican obstructionism would be punished, but...it certainly hasn't always been. Republican voters do not actually seem to be outraged over not appointing a justice, for instance.

Now, sardia did ask for examples of Democratic ideologues, and that's fair. I'd cheerfully point at climate speakers such as Gore. There's an idealism there that isn't always practical. In this instance, the opposition to nuclear power.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:26 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Sorry, it strains the bounds of credulity for me to believe all this was just an honest mistake. It would require a breath-taking degree of ignorance and incompetence on Ms. Clinton's part, and whatever else I may think of her, she doesn't strike me as being either ignorant or incompetent.

Be honest: If this whole thing had come down the exact same way, but with a Republican Secretary of State, would you still be insisting there was no evidence of any wrong-doing? Or would you be claiming it was a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok...?


I think there's a shade of gray that you might be missing here. Setting up the email server and using it for work-related purposes definitely was not an honest mistake. It seems reasonably clear that the intention of the server was not to conceal classified information or to share it improperly, but it apparently did happen on occasion.

There's a reasonable chance that, had this come to light while she was still SoC, she might have been forced to resign. Had she been some mid-level subordinate, she probably at the very least would have received a formal reprimand, and possibly would have been fired and stripped of her clearance for future government work. That does not necessarily mean that she ought to face criminal sanctions. This, admittedly, is not a ringing endorsement for a candidate for president.

I think you may be conflating some issues here though anyway. The email business has really nothing to do with cronyism or corruption per se.

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 7:31 pm UTC

The problem of storing spent uranium isn't going to go away. And, when meltdowns do happen, the consequences can be awful. That said, it's like comparing travelling by plane and driving. And planes/nuclear power is statistically way safer. So there's some ideology in there, but I also don't know if I would personally file that objection under "environmentalism".
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 8:00 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think you may be conflating some issues here though anyway. The email business has really nothing to do with cronyism or corruption per se.

You're right, my conflation of the emails with corruption or cronyism is opinion, not fact. It's just that wrapping up my post with her own words was too good to pass up!

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:13 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
the Guardian wrote:Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the US worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents provided to the Associated Press.

The details of Melania Trump’s early paid modeling work in the US emerged in the final days of a bitter presidential campaign .....
That story broke months ago; it seems phenomenally lazy of the guardian to not research that. I would have expected them to have someone read every issue of the Sun and the New York Times. The Sun being the paper who first published the issue (with regards to the election and boobies) and the times that did the math and realized it was visa fraud.
Diadem wrote:Why he appointed a Republican is beyond me
He can only appoint someone the senate approves.
CorruptUser wrote:Surprised that Witnesses are mostly independent
I'm pretty sure that's actually an official church stance. I believe they're not even allowed to vote.

As for the blue portion:
Wikipedia wrote:They do not work in industries associated with the military, do not serve in the armed services,[266] and refuse national military service, which in some countries may result in their arrest and imprisonment. They do not salute or pledge allegiance to flags or sing national anthems or patriotic songs. Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as a worldwide brotherhood that transcends national boundaries and ethnic loyalties
Tyndmyr wrote:In fairness, Clinton is arguing that she just happened to have made many decisions that are incredibly convenient to her defense. The implication that there's at least some degree of intent here in pursuit of secrecy is pretty reasonable.

This isn't so much a real point, just a love of irony:

Since the worst accusation on the table her is intentionally not pursuing secrecy in state matters, that would mean that she had intend to pursue secrecy of her intent not to pursue secrecy.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:Lower taxes *than what we have now* will grow the economy and increase revenue.


And then they cut taxes, and then say the same thing. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever, but they support it purely out of ideology. Ask them what the correct rate is and they have no answer (except maybe zero). They have not considered how much tax rates should be at all, they just agree no matter what they are today that it's too high. If you think pragmatism has anything to do with anything, look at how ridiculous their budgets are - they can't even get right-wing economic organizations to say they won't increase the deficit, but the politicians push for more tax cuts anyway. Why? Because the tax cuts themselves are the goal.

arbiteroftruth wrote:Less regulation *than what we have now* is better than the status quo.


Ask a Republican at what point we have too much regulation - they never talking about making changes or fixing issues, just eliminating regulations. Why? The regulations themselves aren't examined, it's their existence in the first place that they object to.

arbiteroftruth wrote:The government *as is* does enough things it shouldn't that a brief "shutdown" isn't such a big concern.


Yeah, only 10 billion dollars lost to our economy, which is the equivalent of 75,000 households losing all of their income ($16,155.3 billion (2013 GDP) / 123,931 thousand households = per-household GDP = $130,357; median household income for 2013 was $53,585, which is 41.1% of the per-household GDP, 41.1% of 10 billion is 4.1 billion, which at $53,585 per household ~= 75,000 households)

http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys ... /h03ar.xls
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

So yes, I would think that would be a big concern. Granted, it is uneven; however, we know that it did harm the economy, but we have no reason to believe that anyone *at all* benefited from it. How is there anything pragmatic about shutting down the government?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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 8:46 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Ask a Republican at what point we have too much regulation - they never talking about making changes or fixing issues, just eliminating regulations. Why? The regulations themselves aren't examined, it's their existence in the first place that they object to.


The book Death of Common Sense and the follow-up Rule of Nobody give a good non-partisan argument explanation for how overregulation is killing us and how it could be fixed. Many regulations are simply outdated, many exist because they sound good on paper but are too burdensome to be practical. Just passing a law that all regulations expire after 15 years unless cost-benifit analysis supports their continuation could go a long way. The good news is Hillary has supposedly taken the author's "Common Sense" pledge along with some of the Republican candidates. Republicans just make this a bigger talking point.
lol everything matters
-Ed

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 8:51 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:[They have not considered how much tax rates should be at all, they just agree no matter what they are today that it's too high.

Very Marxist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If you think pragmatism has anything to do with anything, look at how ridiculous their budgets are - they can't even get right-wing economic organizations to say they won't increase the deficit, but the politicians push for more tax cuts anyway. Why? Because the tax cuts themselves are the goal.


Are we talking about the pros and cons of tax cuts, or are we talking about budgets in general? The pragmatic argument for tax cuts is primarily as a stimulus to the economy. The Republicans' failure to propose a balanced budget is A. a separate issue, and B. entirely a matter of political pragmatism because people get pissed when they propose spending cuts.

Thesh wrote:Ask a Republican at what point we have too much regulation - they never talking about making changes or fixing issues, just eliminating regulations. Why? The regulations themselves aren't examined, it's their existence in the first place that they object to.


Let's say I grant that for the sake of discussion. So? Your prototypical Republican would argue that most regulations are pragmatically a bad thing because they limit the ability of the free market to innovate and thus hurt the economy in the long run. You may quite reasonably disagree. You may have very compelling arguments proving them wrong. Being wrong and being an ideologue are not the same thing.

Thesh wrote:How is there anything pragmatic about shutting down the government?


When you're convinced that the proposed budget is pragmatically even worse than a shutdown.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Ask a Republican at what point we have too much regulation - they never talking about making changes or fixing issues, just eliminating regulations. Why? The regulations themselves aren't examined, it's their existence in the first place that they object to.


The book Death of Common Sense and the follow-up Rule of Nobody give a good non-partisan argument explanation for how overregulation is killing us and how it could be fixed. Many regulations are simply outdated, many exist because they sound good on paper but are too burdensome to be practical. Just passing a law that all regulations expire after 15 years unless cost-benifit analysis supports their continuation could go a long way. The good news is Hillary has supposedly taken the author's "Common Sense" pledge along with some of the Republican candidates. Republicans just make this a bigger talking point.


Sure, there are bad regulations that need to be modified or changed. The point is Republicans aren't doing that.

Soupspoon wrote:
Thesh wrote:[They have not considered how much tax rates should be at all, they just agree no matter what they are today that it's too high.

Very Marxist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU


Well, Marx's vision is pretty irrelevant in a modern society, simply because the economy back then was a fraction of the size, and was primarily dedicated to necessities that could easily be produced locally. Promoting anarcho-communism today would make about as much sense as promoting anarcho-capitalism - they just won't function on this scale.

arbiteroftruth wrote:Are we talking about the pros and cons of tax cuts, or are we talking about budgets in general? The pragmatic argument for tax cuts is primarily as a stimulus to the economy.


arbiteroftruth wrote:entirely a matter of political pragmatism because people get pissed when they propose spending cuts.



arbiteroftruth wrote:Your prototypical Republican would argue that most regulations are pragmatically a bad thing because they limit the ability of the free market to innovate and thus hurt the economy in the long run.


arbiteroftruth wrote:
Thesh wrote:How is there anything pragmatic about shutting down the government?

When you're convinced that the proposed budget is pragmatically even worse than a shutdown.


I don't think you know what pragmatic is. Following your belief without considering facts or evidence, or even weighing consequences is not pragmatic - that's exactly what an ideologue does.
Last edited by Thesh on Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:13 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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 9:12 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Thesh wrote:[They have not considered how much tax rates should be at all, they just agree no matter what they are today that it's too high.

Very Marxist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU


Well, Marx's vision is pretty irrelevant in a modern society, simply because the economy back then was a fraction of the size, and was primarily dedicated to necessities that could easily be produced locally. Promoting anarcho-communism today would make about as much sense as promoting anarcho-capitalism - they just won't function on this scale.

But then Marx also thought that, outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend, whilst inside of a dog it's too dark to read. He also said "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, well, I have others."
(You didn't watch the clip, I take it? :P)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Liri wrote:The problem of storing spent uranium isn't going to go away. And, when meltdowns do happen, the consequences can be awful. That said, it's like comparing travelling by plane and driving. And planes/nuclear power is statistically way safer. So there's some ideology in there, but I also don't know if I would personally file that objection under "environmentalism".


It's not all environmentalists, to be sure. But environmentalism is traditionally more emphasized on the left, and many of those environmentalists have also opposed nuclear power. The more pragmatic sorts are willing to take any option that's better than burning lots of dirty coal(to include natural gas, etc), whereas the more idealistic have sort of a perfect world they envision, and criticize anything that falls short of that in any respect. So, you might have the same person bashing coal, but also enraged about the number of birds killed by windmills, and hating nuclear power. It's only certain people, but they definitely land further from pragmatic on the scale.

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In fairness, Clinton is arguing that she just happened to have made many decisions that are incredibly convenient to her defense. The implication that there's at least some degree of intent here in pursuit of secrecy is pretty reasonable.

This isn't so much a real point, just a love of irony:

Since the worst accusation on the table her is intentionally not pursuing secrecy in state matters, that would mean that she had intend to pursue secrecy of her intent not to pursue secrecy.


She values secrecy for herself, nobody's arguing that point. Merely that she doesn't value secrecy(and transparency and proper records keeping, where applicable) for national interests. It's the putting personal interests above national ones.

Thesh wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:Lower taxes *than what we have now* will grow the economy and increase revenue.


And then they cut taxes, and then say the same thing. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever, but they support it purely out of ideology. Ask them what the correct rate is and they have no answer (except maybe zero). They have not considered how much tax rates should be at all, they just agree no matter what they are today that it's too high. If you think pragmatism has anything to do with anything, look at how ridiculous their budgets are - they can't even get right-wing economic organizations to say they won't increase the deficit, but the politicians push for more tax cuts anyway. Why? Because the tax cuts themselves are the goal.


Tax cuts do grow the economy. This isn't very controversial. Exact number depends on what study you cite(in practice, I suspect the degree of effect largely depends on how spending is affected, and what that spending was on). The only problem comes in when magical thinking believes that the tax cut will grow the economy by enough to increase net revenue. This requires a very high multiplier which is...not really supported by reputable studies for our current levels of taxation(or close to them, if we're being picky). It might be true in vastly more extreme cases, but it's brought up when it definitely doesn't apply.

But cutting taxes to grow GDP is an entirely reasonable goal. It's like unemployment. We want it lower. Yeah, you can set targets if you want(and government does), but every political candidate ever is going to stump for a better economy, lower unemployment, etc.

Thesh wrote:Sure, there are bad regulations that need to be modified or changed. The point is Republicans aren't doing that.


Quite correct. My belief on this matter is that there is fairly little political capital to be reaped in tidying up some long forgotten, rarely used bit of legal cruft. Instead, one can more readily rally the base by tilting at political windmills. Cry about Roe v Wade or something, I suppose.

If you'll forgive a programming analogy, every software project needs good testers and bug fixing more than they need a holy war over proper conventions, but the latter's way easier to get.

Cleaning up the trash is an easy promise to make, but it's pretty tedious to actually do in progress, and with little reward, it just ends up not getting political capital spent on it. I'm not sure how you fix this. For the most part, tidying up legal cruft isn't a priority for *anyone* until it makes a big, public mess.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:26 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:(You didn't watch the clip, I take it? :P)


No, no I didn't.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
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.


Eh, Democrats let that happen. Chants of "USA, USA" pretty much guarantee you're at a republican shindig. Democrats have treated patriotism as something to be vaguely ashamed of for some time now. They're much more comfortable pointing out American flaws than celebrating successes. Republicans, the reverse.

There's merit to each thing, of course, but it does seem like halo effects apply, and the two are to some degree exclusive in the public mind.


FYI: President Obama definitely led a "USA-USA" chant today at one of Clinton's rallies (I bet at this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swGq6fEj00 but I haven't found it yet)

Not that I disagree with you in particular however. I do think Democrats in general are more ashamed to be patriotic than Republicans. But I was listening to the radio today and heard a very major counter-example and felt like sharing it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Not that I disagree with you in particular however. I do think Democrats in general are more ashamed to be patriotic than Republicans. But I was listening to the radio today and heard a very major counter-example and felt like sharing it.
The Democrats are careful to be patriotic, but not nationalistic(if that's possible). They try specifically to promote the American values they like(free speech, the American dream etc.) while avoiding things like saying the US is the best country in the world, and jingoism that can come with being overly supportive of the military.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

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 9:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
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.


Eh, Democrats let that happen. Chants of "USA, USA" pretty much guarantee you're at a republican shindig. Democrats have treated patriotism as something to be vaguely ashamed of for some time now. They're much more comfortable pointing out American flaws than celebrating successes. Republicans, the reverse.

There's merit to each thing, of course, but it does seem like halo effects apply, and the two are to some degree exclusive in the public mind.


FYI: President Obama definitely led a "USA-USA" chant today at one of Clinton's rallies (I bet at this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swGq6fEj00 but I haven't found it yet)

Not that I disagree with you in particular however. I do think Democrats in general are more ashamed to be patriotic than Republicans. But I was listening to the radio today and heard a very major counter-example and felt like sharing it.

Yeah, I'll definitely agree this election has changed that dynamic - at least on the national stage. Like at the DNC. Which is nice, in a way. But I still feel like being proud of being born in a particular place is a little silly, like Thesh said. The uncomfortable part comes from imagining the person living in the house with a 30 ft flagpole out front. Yes, I live in the south.

E: And yeah, what Dark said.
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.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:05 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I don't think you know what pragmatic is. Following your belief without considering facts or evidence, or even weighing consequences is not pragmatic - that's exactly what an ideologue does.


They would say they have considered the evidence and the consequences, and have come to difference conclusions than you do. Which brings me back to my original point. They seem like ideologues to you because you think they're wrong.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:10 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:
Thesh wrote:I don't think you know what pragmatic is. Following your belief without considering facts or evidence, or even weighing consequences is not pragmatic - that's exactly what an ideologue does.


They would say they have considered the evidence and the consequences


No, they *deny* the evidence and the consequences and use the term "expert" as a pejorative; there is a HUGE difference there.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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 10:10 pm UTC

There is such a thing as reality so it is actually possible for Thesh to be right about that and the other side wrong when they are saying the same. Declaring that he is thinking that because he thinks they are wrong and they think the same about dems isn't a magical argument that means neither side can be right because symmetry.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:24 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:
Thesh wrote:I don't think you know what pragmatic is. Following your belief without considering facts or evidence, or even weighing consequences is not pragmatic - that's exactly what an ideologue does.


They would say they have considered the evidence and the consequences


No, they *deny* the evidence and the consequences and use the term "expert" as a pejorative; there is a HUGE difference there.


When you say Republicans are ideologues, are you making a statement about their thought process from their own perspective, or are you diagnosing a fault in their reasoning that they don't perceive? If the latter, then we're talking about different things. If the former, remember that all evidence must be weighed by the reliability of the source, and what you call denial they would call trusting different sources than you do.

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 10:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Not that I disagree with you in particular however. I do think Democrats in general are more ashamed to be patriotic than Republicans. But I was listening to the radio today and heard a very major counter-example and felt like sharing it.
I'm not sure I agree with the phrasing, I'd think it's more that Democrats are less willing to be blindly patriotic? Perhaps more that they're willing to be ashamed of America's actions or perception on the world stage at all?

Maybe that's the same thing though, depending on how you define patriotism.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:28 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:When you say Republicans are ideologues, are you making a statement about their thought process from their own perspective, or are you diagnosing a fault in their reasoning that they don't perceive? If the latter, then we're talking about different things. If the former, remember that all evidence must be weighed by the reliability of the source, and what you call denial they would call trusting different sources than you do.


What I am saying is that the Republicans will not change their mind on taxes and regulation no matter what the evidence - if evidence agrees with them, they accept it, if it disagrees they reject it as biased. Tax cuts can grow the economy for the exact same reasons spending increases can, but both only work under certain conditions (i.e. lack of aggregate demand), so why do Republicans accept the former and reject the latter (well, they reject it NOW)? They don't try and understand why, their only answer is "Well if we cut taxes, people will invest, and our economy will grow", which there is absolutely no reason to believe this is the case under the current economic situation, considering income inequality is peaking, and growth over the last 15 years is the lowest it's been in a while - the whole idea fails to hold water. Even the economist under Reagan who supported trickle down said it doesn't work, in fact I'm not sure there's a study that supports it, but it's still the driving principle behind Republican economic policy.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:57 pm UTC

Liri wrote:But I still feel like being proud of being born in a particular place is a little silly, like Thesh said. The uncomfortable part comes from imagining the person living in the house with a 30 ft flagpole out front.
Are you ashamed or do you just not care? I'm not proud of being born here, I'm proud of what it means to be an American.
Dark567 wrote:The Democrats are careful to be patriotic, but not nationalistic(if that's possible). They try specifically to promote the American values they like(free speech, the American dream etc.) while avoiding things like saying the US is the best country in the world, and jingoism that can come with being overly supportive of the military.
Democrats or Republicans don't march in lockstep and one size fits all descriptions lead to stereotyping.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:51 am UTC

https://t.co/x8ODFzJBpK storify of Kurt Eichenwalds top 129 findings on trump. Some stuff I hadn't heard of. Not that hearing more negative stuff about him matters at this point but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. Edit: Though really he should have written a damn article with references instead of twitter. Twitter just isn't a suitable tool for this.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:03 am UTC

So, based off Trump's tendency to accuse others of his own sins, and Russian interferance, and crappy diebold machines, odds Russia will steal US election for their wipping boy?

I mean they don't even have to get off scott free: if they leave evidence of tampering it delegitimizes the US democracy. Even better.

Imagine a Trump "win" with 75% of the vote in 3 swing states while exit polls show 48%-52% against. Or better, 52%-48%, but Trump's win comes from hugely concentrated votes in paper-track-less machine counties. Heck even with a paper track: the lawsuits to recount and block the recount and calls to action to "prevent the election from being stolen". Regardless of recount result, huge unrest.

If your goal is to topple the USA, not a bad plan. Chaos also drives oil price up, saving Russia from bankruptcy. Distracted US does nothing as Russia enters Eastern Ukraine.

Unlikely scenario I'll admit.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

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

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:09 am UTC

I think the US system is too resistant to widespread tampering from a foreign government. It's possible that it will occur at a smaller level, but I think it would take too large of an effort to have a real impact.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:16 am UTC

538 complains that pollsters are showing errors. One, signs of herding as many polls converge on a Hillary 4 point lead. Two, Latinos are under counted in Nevada and Florida due to lack of cellphones, and lack of Spanish pollsters. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... -converge/

How much does this affect Clinton over all? Increases her odds by 5%.

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:47 am UTC

Two polls are reporting already thanks to New Hampshire's weird voting laws (small communities are allowed to open the polls at midnight and close them again as soon as all of the registered voters have cast ballots).

Clinton/Kaine: 21
Trump/Pence: 16
Johnson/Wassisface: 4
Kasich: 1
Romney: 1
Sanders: 1
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pex and 20 guests