2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Relevant to the discussion Knight said had to be continued here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSuppor ... o/daxnkxz/
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:10 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Probably. In fairness, so is reducing emissions.

That's true. However, unless you think fusion is actually going to happen in the next century, the renewable technology we've got now is getting pretty close to as good as can be expected. We don't know exactly when we're going to run out of recoverable fossil fuels, but it's going to happen eventually. We're going to have to pay that transition cost eventually. Better to do it now rather than pay for additional natural disaster relief for the next few centuries.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:32 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 965560da7a

Maybe there's a good reason to be pessimistic in America today, especially when you consider the death rates of Americans in rural areas is significantly worse.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10170
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:28 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Probably. In fairness, so is reducing emissions.

That's true. However, unless you think fusion is actually going to happen in the next century, the renewable technology we've got now is getting pretty close to as good as can be expected. We don't know exactly when we're going to run out of recoverable fossil fuels, but it's going to happen eventually. We're going to have to pay that transition cost eventually. Better to do it now rather than pay for additional natural disaster relief for the next few centuries.


Why? Postponing costs a few centuries, even if the costs still exist, is a huge savings. Totally worth paying some upkeep for. It's little different than a loan, really.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

Sure, that's a good comparison. I just hate debt, but you're right that doing a formal analysis of the risks and costs would be necessary to make an informed decision there.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
SDK wrote:We're going to have to pay that transition cost eventually. Better to do it now rather than pay for additional natural disaster relief for the next few centuries.
Why? Postponing costs a few centuries, even if the costs still exist, is a huge savings. Totally worth paying some upkeep for. It's little different than a loan, really.
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=26.3026,278.8136&zoom=8&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=29.4437,2 ... zoom=8&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=32.6665,2 ... zoom=8&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=38.2678,2 ... zoom=9&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=40.6983,2 ... oom=11&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.2853,3 ... zoom=7&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=31.1852,4 ... zoom=8&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=23.4437,4 ... zoom=8&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=11.8250,4 ... zoom=7&m=9
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=32.2946,4 ... zoom=7&m=9
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _edit2.jpg
http://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/upload ... helter.jpg
https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ ... 01dda5.jpg
http://photo.sf.co.ua/g/184/4.jpg
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-0 ... eeseHalter
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... g_Hole.JPG
http://www.amsnews.tv/wp-content/upload ... 831f93.jpg
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-p ... castle.jpg
http://www.artcornwall.org/features/bos ... floods.jpg
http://gloucestershirepolicearchives.or ... C_0017.jpg
http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Com ... s_full.jpg
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-p ... erfall.jpg
https://mwinnett.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 0-11-b.jpg

Our home is getting repossessed one acre at a time, and you want to default on another 100 years of mortgage payments?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Why? Postponing costs a few centuries, even if the costs still exist, is a huge savings. Totally worth paying some upkeep for. It's little different than a loan, really.
We aren't transitioning from fossil fuels because we are running out of fossil fuels.

Carry on.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10170
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:49 pm UTC

I'm not saying that it necessarily *is* cheaper, only that it might well be. The logic does not differ in structure from a loan, and loans are perfectly useful tools in many scenarios.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with running the numbers. Now, granted, this chap is wildly unlikely to do this in anything like a fair manner, and he's almost certainly going to cheerfully dismantle much of the EPA, but I do think there's far too much "of COURSE we have to fund renewables, etc", without relying on justifying math.

And so far, we're not actually losing the earth an acre at a time. The destruction of reefs has increased island growth rates, and we actually have net gains there so far. This is actually a really good example of why relying on intuition isn't enough. Yeah, there's a real cost there, but it's not as commonly portrayed.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:49 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not saying that it necessarily *is* cheaper, only that it might well be. The logic does not differ in structure from a loan, and loans are perfectly useful tools in many scenarios.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with running the numbers. Now, granted, this chap is wildly unlikely to do this in anything like a fair manner, and he's almost certainly going to cheerfully dismantle much of the EPA, but I do think there's far too much "of COURSE we have to fund renewables, etc", without relying on justifying math.

And so far, we're not actually losing the earth an acre at a time. The destruction of reefs has increased island growth rates, and we actually have net gains there so far. This is actually a really good example of why relying on intuition isn't enough. Yeah, there's a real cost there, but it's not as commonly portrayed.

There's national security reasons for stopping global warming. What happens when all the land gains are in crapistan, but all the land losses are in armed-to the-teethrabia? Then somebody is gonna get hurt. Imagine Syria refugees crisis, but across a quarter of the planet. You'd be struggling between shooting your enemies, fighting over the good parts, defending your borders from migrants, and putting down riots. We can't even psychologically handle the trickle of refugees now. *

*The US can just buy it's way out of trouble, but who's to say the Chinese, or next regional/world power won't drive up demand on scarce globally prices goods?

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There's national security reasons for stopping global warming.

Exactly. It's a similar argument as to why countries should be self-sufficient for food and energy despite it being more costly than relying on global trade. Except that the coming refugee crisis will be extremely costly in direct terms - though much more so for Europe than the US I'd imagine.

Yes, right now GW is mostly a net gain eg. through increased food yields. The problem is that the temperature rises are locked in and there's a huge lead-time in switching away from fossil fuels. The ledger is quickly going to head south.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
sardia wrote:There's national security reasons for stopping global warming.

Exactly. It's a similar argument as to why countries should be self-sufficient for food and energy despite it being more costly than relying on global trade. Except that the coming refugee crisis will be extremely costly in direct terms - though much more so for Europe than the US I'd imagine.

Yes, right now GW is mostly a net gain eg. through increased food yields. The problem is that the temperature rises are locked in and there's a huge lead-time in switching away from fossil fuels. The ledger is quickly going to head south.



And that's without getting into the methane clathrate gun hypothesis.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:29 pm UTC

Global warming is going to be bad, and I don't think Tyndmyr is saying otherwise. He's just saying that it will also be costly to revamp the entirety of our energy infrastructure. I don't think anyone here would dispute those two points. The question is which will be more costly? If it's as unbalanced as I suspect (and if you believe all the doomsaying that environmentalists spout - a lot of which is certainly legitimate!), then you should welcome such an analysis. If I had more time at the moment I would try to find a couple papers on the topic. I'm pretty sure I've seen attempts before, but they were hotly contested (of course).
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:40 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Global warming is going to be bad, and I don't think Tyndmyr is saying otherwise. He's just saying that it will also be costly to revamp the entirety of our energy infrastructure. I don't think anyone here would dispute those two points. The question is which will be more costly? If it's as unbalanced as I suspect (and if you believe all the doomsaying that environmentalists spout - a lot of which is certainly legitimate!), then you should welcome such an analysis. If I had more time at the moment I would try to find a couple papers on the topic. I'm pretty sure I've seen attempts before, but they were hotly contested (of course).

And then there's people who stall by claiming they need more information. If we weren't on such a tight schedule(because of all the stalling and opposition) it wouldn't be so bad. This isn't gay marriage, where a set back doesn't really matter, since any individual setback can be overcome elsewhere or later.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/okl ... -terrible/
Anyway, in spite of, or as a result of the guy soon to be in charge of the EPA, Oklahoma doesn't have a terrible a environmental record as you would expect., it's no California, but it's definitely average. Maybe Scott Pruitt ran into opposition, or was ham strung somehow.
Nobody quite knows. With free reign at the EPA, maybe he gets more dangerous/aggressive.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:09 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Global warming is going to be bad, and I don't think Tyndmyr is saying otherwise. He's just saying that it will also be costly to revamp the entirety of our energy infrastructure. I don't think anyone here would dispute those two points. The question is which will be more costly? If it's as unbalanced as I suspect (and if you believe all the doomsaying that environmentalists spout - a lot of which is certainly legitimate!), then you should welcome such an analysis

A big problem is that the costs of action and inaction will not be paid by the same parties. The former will mainly hit the West and the latter mainly the developing world.

Another big problem is the inherent unfairness that the West has grown rich burning fossil fuels and the developing world is to be denied the same opportunity.

The West can of course just tot up the numbers in its own economic interests as you suggest, but wars have been fought over less.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:38 pm UTC

That's a fair point. Any cost analysis not taking into account the entire world would be pretty tragic. I didn't mean to suggest doing it for the US alone.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:19 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Why? Postponing costs a few centuries, even if the costs still exist, is a huge savings. Totally worth paying some upkeep for. It's little different than a loan, really.
Does this state the problem correctly? What are you worrying about? Running out of gas or the climate? Both are indeterminate in different ways. This can be illustrated by the difference between two closely related questions about a roof. What is the problem you are trying to solve? Replacing the roof when the need eventually comes? Or is the roof is leaking? In the first there is no cost incurred until you need the roof. In the second the sooner you start the cheaper it is to fix because the damage is ongoing.

Carry on.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10170
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There's national security reasons for stopping global warming. What happens when all the land gains are in crapistan, but all the land losses are in armed-to the-teethrabia? Then somebody is gonna get hurt. Imagine Syria refugees crisis, but across a quarter of the planet. You'd be struggling between shooting your enemies, fighting over the good parts, defending your borders from migrants, and putting down riots. We can't even psychologically handle the trickle of refugees now. *

*The US can just buy it's way out of trouble, but who's to say the Chinese, or next regional/world power won't drive up demand on scarce globally prices goods?


Sure, those are all costs. All of which could be evaluated.

SDK wrote:Global warming is going to be bad, and I don't think Tyndmyr is saying otherwise. He's just saying that it will also be costly to revamp the entirety of our energy infrastructure. I don't think anyone here would dispute those two points. The question is which will be more costly? If it's as unbalanced as I suspect (and if you believe all the doomsaying that environmentalists spout - a lot of which is certainly legitimate!), then you should welcome such an analysis.


Precisely. More data and analysis is not the enemy unless you're uncertain of the facts, and uncomfortable with what they might actually be.

sardia wrote:And then there's people who stall by claiming they need more information. If we weren't on such a tight schedule(because of all the stalling and opposition) it wouldn't be so bad. This isn't gay marriage, where a set back doesn't really matter, since any individual setback can be overcome elsewhere or later.


Your definition of "doesn't really matter" seems odd. And the "tight schedule" isn't a reason for not planning. Humanity is, as a whole, pretty rough at projects as they scale upwards in time and complexity. Errors grow more likely, and larger.

Yes, putting more effort into proving the mere existence of warming is probably not effort well spent, but you pretty much have to plan out mitigation and change costs *anyways*. Even the harshest carbon cutting isn't going to entirely avoid mitigation costs.

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Why? Postponing costs a few centuries, even if the costs still exist, is a huge savings. Totally worth paying some upkeep for. It's little different than a loan, really.
Does this state the problem correctly? What are you worrying about? Running out of gas or the climate? Both are indeterminate in different ways. This can be illustrated by the difference between two closely related questions about a roof. What is the problem you are trying to solve? Replacing the roof when the need eventually comes? Or is the roof is leaking? In the first there is no cost incurred until you need the roof. In the second the sooner you start the cheaper it is to fix because the damage is ongoing.

Carry on.


More interested in climate, though the two are related.

Honestly, I think the practical outcome is that humanity will burn pretty much all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on, no matter what we say we'll do, or what we'll plan, but aiming for better isn't wrong.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

SDK wrote:That's a fair point. Any cost analysis not taking into account the entire world would be pretty tragic. I didn't mean to suggest doing it for the US alone.

The problem is that voters are becoming more insular, not less. Witness Trump and "America First".

I really think the only cost analysis voters will care about is "how would GW hurt my wallet specifically?"

And since politicians don't lead anymore but just pander to populist sentiments, I think the direction of travel is pretty clear.

Tyndmyr wrote:Honestly, I think the practical outcome is that humanity will burn pretty much all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on, no matter what we say we'll do, or what we'll plan, but aiming for better isn't wrong.

I agree. As I've argued in other threads, I think it's a dead cert that nothing substantial will get done, that global warming will go through the roof and then we'll apply a band-aid fix in terms of aerosols or whatnot.

The juries out on how well that will work. Personally I'm reasonably optimistic.

Opus_723
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

I'm a scientifically minded person, and I certainly understand the inclination to do a cost-benefit analysis. I even think it's a helpful exercise.

But frankly, I don't really care if some islands are increasing in area when the salmon run in my state is collapsing due to warmer water. I just want people to stop polluting my air. Particularly since I live in a state whose contribution to the problem is relatively minimal since we have a largely clean power grid. There's definitely a moral/justice component to action on global warming, not just an economic one. I'm surprised I don't see more libertarian types treating it as a violation of property rights, although there are some.

Also, it's kind of shitty to do a cost benefit analysis and then decide that it's more efficient to put off the cost for 100 years, because then you're not actually the one who has to pay the cost. That makes me really skeptical of this whole "maybe now isn't the most effective time to fight global warming" line of thought.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

Back to the US politics.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its ... fore-2016/
Clinton’s weak position in the Electoral College was not solely the result of her own campaign and that, instead, the Democratic Party has a problem.So if a weakening in Democratic support in a few key states cost the party its edge in the Electoral College, what should Democrats do? Perhaps the best answer is “wait and see.” It took a few years after Obama’s re-election in 2012 for Trump’s “Midwestern” path to the White House to emerge as viable. Trump won running primarily on a hardline stance toward immigration, which is exactly the opposite of what Republicans argued for in their assessment of what went wrong for them in 2012. The point is that things can change quickly in politics. States like Arizona and Georgia could quickly turn blue. Some states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, might flip back into the Democrats’ column. We just don’t know yet. The only thing we do know is that, historically speaking, any one party’s advantage in the Electoral College doesn’t last. Four or eight years from now, something will probably emerge that gives Democrats the opportunity to win the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote.

Tldr Democrats are fucked, and there's nothing they can do about it. BUT only in the short run. The important thing is to wait and see. What looks obvious after an election, could be wrong in four years. If Trump messes up on trade, seize that opportunity. If some random issue GOP is weak on rises, ride that to victory. *

* Yes, this does rely on your opponent's messing up, and yes this could be a golden age of Republicanism which breaks traditional trends. But statically it won't last long. Democrats should wait in the cold, and seize their chance at the next opportunity. They'll have time to test run new ideas(or decide the old ideas still work) in the next 2 and 4 years.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Had a bit of time to dig. The cost-benefit analysis has been done, and looks to be solidly in the "do something" camp. Though different analyses come to different conclusions on how worth-it action is, they do agree that it's worth it. I didn't find any evidence of a cost-benefit analysis that came to the conclusion that we should do nothing. A few arm-chair scientists (like me?) making conclusions based on others' work, but it looks like they made errors in their assumptions, or didn't look at everything.

I'd forgotten one that got quite a bit of press, the Stern Review -- estimates 5%-20% GDP loss due to effects of climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169158/St ... usions.pdf

IPCC Report -- estimates "several percentage points" of GDP loss, quoted as 0.2% to 2% elsewhere, but I couldn't find that on the IPCC website directly. That seems to be based on limiting this to a 2 degree C increase though, and has an explicit caveat: "global economic impacts from climate change are 'difficult to estimate'"
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resour ... Report.pdf
-- Reading into this further, they do make the conclusion that action now is cheaper, but that's based on losses to "consumption growth" instead of GDP (which is why I didn't find it right away). Go to page 58 of this technical summary for a big table showing that waiting even a couple decades will cost us up to 50% more.
(All the IPCC stuff is based on a 5% annual discount too, meaning that dollars today are valued at %5 higher than dollars next year, and 100% higher than dollars 15 years from now)

UNEP -- estimates 6% GDP costs in Africa by the end of this century.
http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default. ... leID=34788

Random articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm ... 69092.html -- all for rapid action, based on Stern results
http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/31/new-i ... ate-change -- critical of any action based on 2% IPCC number (argues that world GDP is growing faster than that)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=463 -- response to the 2% "climate myth" in the article above (and why the "GDP is growing faster than that" argument made mistakes while reading the IPCC report).

"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:35 am UTC

Pro-trump white supremacists in my town have also been posting flyers about America being a nation for the whites, ripping down pro-diversity flyers, and breaking parade violations by lying to the city organizers in order to turn it into a white supremacy March.

So yeah, definitely not getting any scent of increased, aggressive, open racism in the wake of its normalization via trump. Indiana sucks ass.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:02 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Pro-trump white supremacists in my town have also been posting flyers about America being a nation for the whites, ripping down pro-diversity flyers, and breaking parade violations by lying to the city organizers in order to turn it into a white supremacy March.

So yeah, definitely not getting any scent of increased, aggressive, open racism in the wake of its normalization via trump. Indiana sucks ass.
I feel your pain. We have a Trump clone for Governor in Kentucky. I want a wall around Jefferson County Kentucky to keep out illegal Republicans.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2538
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:45 am UTC

Talking of Trump clones(, Attack Of The)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38259838

Their loss.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:43 am UTC

Trump's team imply that the CIA should never be trusted again.

But Mr Trump's team dismissed the CIA line, saying: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:32 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Trump's team imply that the CIA should never be trusted again.

But Mr Trump's team dismissed the CIA line, saying: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

How does it hurt Trump's if he were to recognize that Russia meddled in the election? Is this Trump showing loyalty to a someone who helped him out? Is this Trump's ego speaking when someone implies it wasn't all him? Is Trump trying to distract us from all the other dumb corrupt shit he's doing?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

I don't know, maybe implying that a foreign power helped you win the election doesn't look good? Also, I suppose there's the theoretical chance of electoral college rebellion.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Angua wrote:Trump's team imply that the CIA should never be trusted again.

But Mr Trump's team dismissed the CIA line, saying: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

How does it hurt Trump's if he were to recognize that Russia meddled in the election? Is this Trump showing loyalty to a someone who helped him out? Is this Trump's ego speaking when someone implies it wasn't all him? Is Trump trying to distract us from all the other dumb corrupt shit he's doing?

Not sure mention the CIA didn't think Saddam had WMDs. Bush demanded access to the raw intelligence and came to that conclusion himself.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I don't know, maybe implying that a foreign power helped you win the election doesn't look good? Also, I suppose there's the theoretical chance of electoral college rebellion.

I'm doing my damnedest to not get my hopes up whatsoever. At the same time, are we, as a country, going to accept that? Is accepting a potentially dodgy result heavily influenced by a quasi-adversarial foreign government (with a popular vote loser, to boot) better or worse for the 'stability of democracy' than mandating/encouraging states to hold votes for electors again?

And even if they did hold new elections, what would that do to turnout? I imagine there would be a whole lot of misinformation directed at voters, some groups would turn out in higher numbers, and some turn out less.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
Angua wrote:I don't know, maybe implying that a foreign power helped you win the election doesn't look good? Also, I suppose there's the theoretical chance of electoral college rebellion.

I'm doing my damnedest to not get my hopes up whatsoever. At the same time, are we, as a country, going to accept that? Is accepting a potentially dodgy result heavily influenced by a quasi-adversarial foreign government (with a popular vote loser, to boot) better or worse for the 'stability of democracy' than mandating/encouraging states to hold votes for electors again?

And even if they did hold new elections, what would that do to turnout? I imagine there would be a whole lot of misinformation directed at voters, some groups would turn out in higher numbers, and some turn out less.
what separates the US from other democracies is the peaceful transfer of power. Even if the Russians meddled, Trump should still win. The only thing that would stop it would be outright mass voter fraud, like thousands of Russian agents committing Trump sized levels of fraud. Which didn't happen. At all.

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

The CIA needs to shut up. If there is evidence that the outcome was perverted they should report to the Commander in Chief. Not to the Washington Post. That isn't their brief. This is an attack on the process.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:what separates the US from other democracies is the peaceful transfer of power. Even if the Russians meddled, Drumpf should still win. The only thing that would stop it would be outright mass voter fraud, like thousands of Russian agents committing Drumpf sized levels of fraud. Which didn't happen. At all.

Oh, I know. I'm definitely more on the side that it would be better for history textbooks if we maintained that respect for the transfer of power, but at the same time, I wouldn't be *that* upset if electors staged a big revolt against him.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
sardia wrote:what separates the US from other democracies is the peaceful transfer of power. Even if the Russians meddled, Drumpf should still win. The only thing that would stop it would be outright mass voter fraud, like thousands of Russian agents committing Drumpf sized levels of fraud. Which didn't happen. At all.

Oh, I know. I'm definitely more on the side that it would be better for history textbooks if we maintained that respect for the transfer of power, but at the same time, I wouldn't be *that* upset if electors staged a big revolt against him.
the person who won should be more upset at Putin. The fact that he's not, and that he's not aligned with his party is a bigger concern than anything Putin did. How much leeway is Trump gonna give Putin? The I'm a isolationists but if you deface my Trump buildings, I'm gonna bomb you? Or the he's a loyal friend, and he can do no wrong?
I do find it ironic that establishment figure are filling out his cabinet, while the early supporters haven't gotten any cushy positions... Yet

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:17 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Liri wrote:
Angua wrote:I don't know, maybe implying that a foreign power helped you win the election doesn't look good? Also, I suppose there's the theoretical chance of electoral college rebellion.

I'm doing my damnedest to not get my hopes up whatsoever. At the same time, are we, as a country, going to accept that? Is accepting a potentially dodgy result heavily influenced by a quasi-adversarial foreign government (with a popular vote loser, to boot) better or worse for the 'stability of democracy' than mandating/encouraging states to hold votes for electors again?

And even if they did hold new elections, what would that do to turnout? I imagine there would be a whole lot of misinformation directed at voters, some groups would turn out in higher numbers, and some turn out less.
what separates the US from other democracies is the peaceful transfer of power. Even if the Russians meddled, Trump should still win. The only thing that would stop it would be outright mass voter fraud, like thousands of Russian agents committing Trump sized levels of fraud. Which didn't happen. At all.

There are many other democracies out there with a peaceful transfer of power. But it's nice that you feel special.

I mean, you guys are the one with a crazy elector system. It's not like I just made it up. Otherwise why have it at all? You can still weigh the vote of the individual states without having specific people go and vote who are allowed to do what they want in case of demagogue.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

I'm trying to work out what a democracy without a peaceful transfer of power looks like. How would that even work?

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

Russia would be a counter-example I guess? With political violence both threatened and actualised. Maybe Turkey would be a current example too?

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Russia would be a counter-example I guess? With political violence both threatened and actualised. Maybe Turkey would be a current example too?


I'd describe those places as democracies in name only, and dictatorships in actuality.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5519
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The CIA needs to shut up. If there is evidence that the outcome was perverted they should report to the Commander in Chief. Not to the Washington Post. That isn't their brief. This is an attack on the process.


So basically, the public should not be aware if foreign powers are trying to influence the election.
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

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I'd describe those places as democracies in name only, and dictatorships in actuality.

Turkey flipped from a normal democracy to a 'democracy in name only' only very recently though. And Russia did have a brief period of true democracy.

It's a warning to us all to respect the process - whether it's Trump lying about millions of fraudulent votes to the UK dogpiling on the judiciary.

Democracies are fragile things.

Thesh wrote:So basically, the public should not be aware if foreign powers are trying to influence the election.

I'd have more sympathy about the whole thing if America wasn't constantly trying to do the same thing itself. Is there any doubt it'd try to influence Russian elections if it could? (And it probably can and does...)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5519
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Thesh wrote:So basically, the public should not be aware if foreign powers are trying to influence the election.

I'd have more sympathy about the whole thing if America wasn't constantly trying to do the same thing itself. Is there any doubt it'd try to influence Russian elections if it could? (And it probably can and does...)

It depends on the nature of the influence. I have no problem as long as it is promoting human rights or geopolitical stability, but I don't think it should involve misinformation; specifically countering disinformation or promoting ideals I think are fine.

EDIT: Also, I think those countries have a clear duty to inform their public about the sources of information they are receiving, and to ensure their populations are as informed as possible.
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


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cphite, karhell and 20 guests