Page 99 of 213

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:56 pm UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:Don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to do the right thing.

He does what provides more advantage to Trump.

Well, he's doing what won him the primary. Whether out not it's advantageous is iffy. Right now it's not failing him though I would say a better Trump would be able to thread the needle between blunt racist Trump and 'not Hillary' Trump.

The Catholics leaving Trump is already priced into the polls. The answer is Clinton is losing support to none of the above, Trump isn't gaining support. Did any polls ahow otherwise yet?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:56 pm UTC
by Chen
Tyndmyr wrote:
elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.


Wait, are there still emails that haven't actually been recovered by the FBI? I thought they had recovered all the deleted emails already?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:02 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Tyndmyr wrote:
elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.
The Russians hacked the DNC not Hillary's mail server. And as much as everybody has looked, that is the one thing no one that I have heard to date has said. Have I missed something? And one might assume the Republicans in the Senate would have bayed it loudly from the Senate floor. Trump evidently has no grasp of the technology. Of course neither do many of his followers. You can bet that they are trying though, both anything Hillary might have or for that matter Trump. Like maybe his tax returns. He should be careful what he wishes for.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:07 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.


Wait, are there still emails that haven't actually been recovered by the FBI? I thought they had recovered all the deleted emails already?


Hillary's lawyers deleted about half of the emails off of the server as "personal" before handing them over to the FBI. These personal emails were erased in such a way that their contents can't be recovered even if the lawyers wanted to.

The FBI did uncover the contents of some of those emails from the recipient at the other end, and at least a few of those were considered "work-related" and should have been handed over.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:37 pm UTC
by elasto
Donald Trump has "actively encouraged" foreign powers to hack his presidential rival Hillary Clinton, her camp says.

Mrs Clinton did not hand over 30,000 emails as part of an investigation into her private email server as they contained private details.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Mr Trump said on Wednesday. "I think you'll be rewarded mightily by our press."

The emails would contain some "beauties", he said.

His appeal comes as Russia stands accused of hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for Mr Trump's benefit. Both Russia and Mr Trump deny the allegation.

"This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent," Jake Sullivan, Mrs Clinton's senior policy adviser, said.


Storm in a teacup, but pure Trump for all that.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:02 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... -machines/

Bruce Schneier is beating the wardrum. How odd.

I agree with him however. We cannot let Russia's attack against our democracy stand. Some form of retaliation seems necessary to send a message.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:10 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to do the right thing.

He does what provides more advantage to Trump.

Well, he's doing what won him the primary. Whether out not it's advantageous is iffy. Right now it's not failing him though I would say a better Trump would be able to thread the needle between blunt racist Trump and 'not Hillary' Trump.

The Catholics leaving Trump is already priced into the polls. The answer is Clinton is losing support to none of the above, Trump isn't gaining support. Did any polls ahow otherwise yet?


Generally speaking, we've got from Clinton being reasonably favored before the primaries to a dead heat. Not that odd, but Trump has generally improved polling over the past coupla weeks(Mostly going off of fivethirtyeight's summary here, since they weight polls fairly well, IMO).

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.


Wait, are there still emails that haven't actually been recovered by the FBI? I thought they had recovered all the deleted emails already?


A bunch were unrecoverable. Clinton and company deleted a large volume that they claimed were personal before complying with the demand to turn over the emails. That's part of what the whole "server wiping" bit was about, to which Clinton sarcastically responded "what, like with a cloth or something?" Some official emails have been confirmed to have been among that amount(because they weren't turned over, and senders had copies and such in federal records), but how many may have been among there is hard to know with certainty. Data recovery is not perfect, once stuff gets overwritten, it becomes vastly harder to recover, and with a few overwrites, definitely impossible. It is very easy to do this intentionally.

Sniping at Clinton for having terrible email security is probably among the more reasonable insulting Trump has tossed out. If he could restrain himself to stuff like that, it'd be kind of a relief.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:15 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
Tyndmyr wrote:Sniping at Clinton for having terrible email security is probably among the more reasonable insulting Trump has tossed out. If he could restrain himself to stuff like that, it'd be kind of a relief.


It bothers me how close Trump is being to decent, and then he has to bring Russia into it and fuck it all up.

-----------

And a large chunk of Clinton's emails have been deleted. That's why I'm saying its more a Records Management fiasco for her than actually a classified-information case. Those emails are supposed to be stored for future historians to analyze. Its not like all of Clinton's emails should have been handed over. Personal communications don't have to be.

But Clinton really could have avoided this whole event by having another email account. Her personal email account (maybe even a "Democrat" Email Account), and then her "Secretary of State" email account. As she sent official emails as Secretary of State, they would come from her .gov account on US Government servers. Then all the records-management crap would have been taken care of automatically.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:32 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Eh, he's not trying to address the issue in a statesmanlike fashion. He's trying to slam her, and tie her technological failings to the DNC's. It keeps older things fresher in voters minds, and creates the illusion of a trend(when actually, the two things are pretty distinct).

Probably intentional. It's not awful strategy. I'm more baffled at some of the verbal diarrhea when he goes off script. He gets so caught up in self promotion and trash talking others, it's just ridiculous. Incredibly offputting, but I guess not for everyone.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:44 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
https://twitter.com/BradSherman/status/ ... 0624949250

When Nixon wanted #DNC files he sent American burglars to Watergate Bld @realDonaldTrump wants to outsource burglary jobs to Russian hackers

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:50 pm UTC
by HES
Don't worry, Trump was just being sarcastic.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:51 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
HES wrote:Don't worry, Trump was just being sarcastic.


The usual. Oh, the press didn't like me saying that. So lemme backtrack.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:55 pm UTC
by Mutex
To be fair the press is incredibly humourless when someone says something clearly as a joke. Problem with Trump is it's genuinely impossible to tell his jokes apart from his usual gibberish, even if they were jokes.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:15 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Sure, the press is often all too eager to treat jokes as some horrible, serious, newsworthy thing.

But Trump's "jokes" are usually not that. They're take-backsies.

Probably works, though. Blame the media for everything, laugh at them, roll on to next ridiculous statement.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:19 pm UTC
by Mutex
Do we know it was definitely not a joke? He must make them occasionally. Not saying there's any reason to believe it definitely was a joke either.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:24 pm UTC
by Dauric
That's really an extension of one of Trump's major flaws: You can't tell when he's being serious, making a joke, or spouting off stream of consciousness as it occurs to him. He doesn't really have a filter except after the fact, and even then only when what he said was unpopular.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:45 pm UTC
by sardia
Mutex wrote:Do we know it was definitely not a joke? He must make them occasionally. Not saying there's any reason to believe it definitely was a joke either.

The reporters asked if he was joking, and then asked him again if what he said gave him any pause. Both times Trump said no, because Trump hadn't considered what he was saying. Then when it blew up, he doubled down on it as not a joke. Finally, when it blew up even more, Trump finally called it a joke in order to take back what he said. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 3897,d.amc

I doubt this will affect voters, the Republicans and independents who hate Trump already won't vote for him and the ones who are on the fence are very very forgiving. It's like the wife who keeps coming back to the abusive husband. There's always an excuse to going back to Trump.
That said, has anybody noticed that Trump hasn't mentioned how sexists he is recently? Smart play to focus on the Muslims and Mexicans.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:55 pm UTC
by Mutex
sardia wrote:The reporters asked if he was joking, and then asked him again if what he said gave him any pause. Both times Trump said no, because Trump hadn't considered what he was saying.


Oh wow. Trying to claim he was joking after explicitly saying he wasn't is... possibly a new level of incompetence even for Trump.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:12 pm UTC
by sardia
Mutex wrote:
sardia wrote:The reporters asked if he was joking, and then asked him again if what he said gave him any pause. Both times Trump said no, because Trump hadn't considered what he was saying.


Oh wow. Trying to claim he was joking after explicitly saying he wasn't is... possibly a new level of incompetence even for Trump.

The lowest Trump has ever gotten was when he went after Megan Kelly and when suggested punishing women who had abortions. He immediately recanted on abortion statement, and he made up with Megan Kelly. There haven't been many reports of sexism since.
I'm referring to how voters react to his vile statements. Most of the other ones have been varied but generally less push back.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:17 pm UTC
by Mutex
I meant usually when he backtracks he either phrased what he said in a vague enough way that he can backtrack afterwards and technically not contradict himself, or, much more rarely, recants what he said. This is the first time I've seen him backtrack by flatly contradicting himself. *shrug* Maybe he's done it before and I didn't see it, I've been less inclined to read about what he's been saying these last couple of months. It seems even the press, at least in the UK was starting to get a bit bored too, until he upped the ante with this Russia stuff.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:35 pm UTC
by Xeio
He fully backtracked on the Abortion "punish women" statement he made in an interview a while back (only a few hours after the interview aired publicly too). Though I don't keep strict track of all of them, that one just sticks out in my mind.

Nowadays he seems to say completely contradictory statements all in the same interview though like the minimum wage thing. So maybe his plan is to just say as many things as possible so you can read literally anything you want as his positions? Providing of course you're willing to ignore he said the opposite as well.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:40 pm UTC
by ahammel
Xeio wrote:Nowadays he seems to say completely contradictory statements all in the same interview though like the minimum wage thing. So maybe his plan is to just say as many things as possible so you can read literally anything you want as his positions? Providing of course you're willing to ignore he said the opposite as well.

The thought of this strategy actually working genuinely terrifies me.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:42 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
To help you sleep at night: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-obama-might-be-trumps-biggest-challenge/

"It’s no secret that because he faced a recalcitrant Congress, Obama took a lot of executive actions. He was also a president famous for making a “kill list” for terrorists that seemed to many to operate outside the bounds of what many were previously constitutionally comfortable with. With Trump on the scene, with his recent comments about Russia and NATO, I have been thinking about the precedent that Obama set when it comes to executive actions.....once you’re in office and your predecessor has set a precedent, there’s very little to stop you from using it to your own ends."

Who feels comfortable with a Trump-selected kill list?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:19 pm UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:To help you sleep at night: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-obama-might-be-trumps-biggest-challenge/

"It’s no secret that because he faced a recalcitrant Congress, Obama took a lot of executive actions. He was also a president famous for making a “kill list” for terrorists that seemed to many to operate outside the bounds of what many were previously constitutionally comfortable with. With Trump on the scene, with his recent comments about Russia and NATO, I have been thinking about the precedent that Obama set when it comes to executive actions.....once you’re in office and your predecessor has set a precedent, there’s very little to stop you from using it to your own ends."

Who feels comfortable with a Trump-selected kill list?

Most of Trump's voters want the authoritarian executive power that Trump threatens. Maybe we can shave a few tentatively trumpers off but they seem so forgiving to Trump. Call on foreign powers to attack your opponent? All is forgiven when Trump takes it back. The sexism? Forgiven if Trump doesn't bring it up again. The standard seems to be, does speaker Ryan still plan to vote Trump. If so, then it wasn't that bad.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:24 am UTC
by Lazar
Xeio wrote:He fully backtracked on the Abortion "punish women" statement he made in an interview a while back (only a few hours after the interview aired publicly too). Though I don't keep strict track of all of them, that one just sticks out in my mind.

In that case, I think it's clear what happened. He had always been indifferently pro-choice, but he naturally had to switch to pro-life in order to run as a Republican – so when the interviewer asked him about the topic of punishment for abortion, he naively responded in the way that he imagined a pro-lifer would respond. As soon as he learned that even the National Right to Life Committee opposes punishments for women, he took it back.

But I agree that he does use contradictory fuzziness to his advantage, especially on domestic issues. There's a significant number of voters out there who think that he'll implement single-payer health care and be just as pro-LGBT as any Democrat.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:21 am UTC
by Xeio
I really have to rant about the Sanders delegates now perpetuating a conspiracy theory that a wifi hotspot is a white noise generator... in a stadium filled to the brim with visible speakers.

Tilting at windmills at this point.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:33 pm UTC
by Mighty Jalapeno
So, I'm trying to understand the last two weeks of American politics.

The 2016 Democratic party just became the 1981 Republican party, and the 2016 Republican party just became Ayn Rand fanfiction? Am I close?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:36 pm UTC
by Dauric
Fanfiction with Donald Trump as a constantly retconned Mary Sue, yeah, pretty much.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:52 pm UTC
by sardia
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So, I'm trying to understand the last two weeks of American politics.

The 2016 Democratic party just became the 1981 Republican party, and the 2016 Republican party just became Ayn Rand fanfiction? Am I close?

Was Ayn Rand a authoritarian ass hole? I thought she was just a selfish ass hole.
The GOP just went for the darker side of politics, Europeans know them right wing nationalists except Trump is also not very knowledgeable. He knows just enough to be extremely dangerous.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... xxers.html
In other news, candidate Jill Stein panders to antivaccine groups.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:19 pm UTC
by KnightExemplar
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... fix&wpmm=1

Washington Post's summary of the last two weeks.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:14 pm UTC
by Lazar
sardia wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/29/jill_stein_continues_pandering_to_anti_vaxxers.html
In other news, candidate Jill Stein panders to antivaccine groups.

Yeah, the Green Party's flirtations with anti-science (such as their hostility to GMOs and nuclear power) are a persistent annoyance. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't feel particularly favorable toward Stein, but I intend to vote for her because – as a disaffected Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state – I feel that it's the only worthwhile thing I can do with my vote. To add one vote to Stein's (meager) total is to say "I'm a progressive who doesn't like the way the Democratic Party does business"; her actual positions don't greatly concern me, because the notion of her being elected is utter fantasy. She might as well be Mickey Mouse.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:01 am UTC
by morriswalters
I suspect a lot of your progressive friends will just sit it out. Youth might sit it out to. It adds up. Instead of the Texas White House we could get the Trump Towers White House. Just saying.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:22 am UTC
by sardia
morriswalters wrote:I suspect a lot of your progressive friends will just sit it out. Youth might sit it out to. It adds up. Instead of the Texas White House we could get the Trump Towers White House. Just saying.

If he truly lives in a noncompetitive Presidential state, his group's viewpoints will most likely affect local and other down ballot races if a bunch of them were to not show up. So more likely, you'll end up living in Austin Texas like hellhole where all the liberals are ruled by Republicans. That's probably the worst case scenario.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:17 am UTC
by addams
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So, I'm trying to understand the last two weeks of American politics.

The 2016 Democratic party just became the 1981 Republican party, and the 2016 Republican party just became Ayn Rand fanfiction? Am I close?

Yes.
As long as your Ayn Rand Fan's don't read.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:33 am UTC
by morriswalters
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I suspect a lot of your progressive friends will just sit it out. Youth might sit it out to. It adds up. Instead of the Texas White House we could get the Trump Towers White House. Just saying.

If he truly lives in a noncompetitive Presidential state, his group's viewpoints will most likely affect local and other down ballot races if a bunch of them were to not show up. So more likely, you'll end up living in Austin Texas like hellhole where all the liberals are ruled by Republicans. That's probably the worst case scenario.
I was pointing out that he presumes knowledge he doesn't have. He assumes that if he doesn't vote, or votes for an alternate, that it won't influence the outcome. This is true only so long as enough people don't make a similar decision, and depress Clinton's vote, and if the state is as safe as he thinks it is. He is of course welcome to vote his conscience. But I refuse to agree with him that it doesn't matter. I work on the theory that if beating Trump is the point, than voting in a way, as a Democrat, that doesn't add to the aggregate vote for Clinton, is aiding Trump. This is currently a two party system, which is why Bernie ran as a Democrat and Trump as a Republican.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:47 pm UTC
by elasto
I remember having a desktop calendar of Bushisms - you know, the kind where you tear off one page every day to reveal a new witicism or faux-pas. Stuff like this:

BUSH: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

BUSH: "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

BUSH: "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

BUSH: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

BUSH: "I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."

BUSH: "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

BUSH: "You work three jobs? ... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

BUSH: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

BUSH: "I've been misunderestimated most of my life."


Bushisms now seem cute and quaint compared to Trumpisms which seem genuinely frightening:

ANDERSON COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TRUMP: “We don't really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete… if we have to walk, we walk.”

TRUMP: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works… Waterboarding is fine, but it’s not nearly tough enough, ok?”

TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me, If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

TRUMP: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things...my primary consultant is myself”

TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

TRUMP: “We don't even really know who the leader [of ISIS] is.”
.
TRUMP: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

TRUMP: "I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he's (Putin) getting an 'A,' and our president is not doing so well.”

TRUMP: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event.”

TRUMP: “Our military is a disaster.”

TRUMP: “We have become a third world country, folks.”

TRUMP: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

TRUMP: “When those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go." (Politifact: False.)

TRUMP: “I got to know (Putin) very well, because we were both on 60 minutes, we were stablemates and we did very well that night. You know that.”

TRUMP: "These dummies say, 'Oh, that's a trade war. Trade war? We're losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there's a trade war?”

TRUMP: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."

TRUMP: "And you've got to give Kim Jong Un credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals…. It's incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn't play games.”

TRUMP: “I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly and I’m not going to tell you what is… All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning.”

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:31 pm UTC
by pogrmman
morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I suspect a lot of your progressive friends will just sit it out. Youth might sit it out to. It adds up. Instead of the Texas White House we could get the Trump Towers White House. Just saying.

If he truly lives in a noncompetitive Presidential state, his group's viewpoints will most likely affect local and other down ballot races if a bunch of them were to not show up. So more likely, you'll end up living in Austin Texas like hellhole where all the liberals are ruled by Republicans. That's probably the worst case scenario.
I was pointing out that he presumes knowledge he doesn't have. He assumes that if he doesn't vote, or votes for an alternate, that it won't influence the outcome. This is true only so long as enough people don't make a similar decision, and depress Clinton's vote, and if the state is as safe as he thinks it is. He is of course welcome to vote his conscience. But I refuse to agree with him that it doesn't matter. I work on the theory that if beating Trump is the point, than voting in a way, as a Democrat, that doesn't add to the aggregate vote for Clinton, is aiding Trump. This is currently a two party system, which is why Bernie ran as a Democrat and Trump as a Republican.


That's what I don't like about the elections here. At least in my precinct, which is solidly democratic (here in Austin), a vote for a third party is basically just a vote for Trump. I really dislike both candidates, which is why I want to go for the Johnson ticket. I don't like him all that much either, but he's better than Clinton and Trump...

The problem is, by not voting for one of the main parties, it'll benefit whichever major candidate has a smaller share of the votes -- which in my precinct will be Clinton. I vastly prefer her to Trump, so I'd feel more comfortable voting for a third party in a solidly red precinct...

I mean, my state is solidly red, but it's really the precinct that matters. It's not like they're'll be many Trump voters here (I think in the primaries, something like 65% of the ballots were cast in the Democratic election, and on the Republican side, Rubio won) -- but considering that there basically isn't any third party support, a vote for a third party is like a vote for the minority major candidate.

Honestly, I'll probably vote my conscience for the presidential ticket, and do in-depth research for all the downballot races to pick the closest candidate to my views...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:55 pm UTC
by Lazar
morriswalters wrote:I was pointing out that he presumes knowledge he doesn't have. He assumes that if he doesn't vote, or votes for an alternate, that it won't influence the outcome. This is true only so long as enough people don't make a similar decision, and depress Clinton's vote, and if the state is as safe as he thinks it is. He is of course welcome to vote his conscience. But I refuse to agree with him that it doesn't matter.

No, I'm presuming something that I know with near absolute certainty, which is that Massachusetts will vote for Hillary in November. In the past four elections here, the Democrat's margin of victory has varied between 23% and 27% – not to mention Hillary's two primary victories. To imagine that any other outcome is remotely plausible is as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her. And if Massachusetts is competitive, then Hillary would be looking at something like a 45-state blowout in favor of Trump.

So what you're asking me to do is to throw away my ability to do something that I consider useful and meaningful with my vote (expressing my dissatisfaction with the two-party system in one of the least competitive states), based on the mind-bogglingly infinitesimal chance that Massachusetts will be a swing state. If I let irrational fear of that magnitude influence my decisionmaking, then I would lock myself in an underground bunker and never set foot outside, let alone vote.

I work on the theory that if beating Trump is the point, than voting in a way, as a Democrat, that doesn't add to the aggregate vote for Clinton, is aiding Trump. This is currently a two party system, which is why Bernie ran as a Democrat and Trump as a Republican.

The US also has an electoral college, which means that increasing a candidate's aggregate vote means nothing if it's in a non-competitive state.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:13 pm UTC
by Sableagle
elasto wrote:Trumpisms which seem genuinely frightening:

ANDERSON COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TRUMP: “We don't really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete… if we have to walk, we walk.”

TRUMP: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works… Waterboarding is fine, but it’s not nearly tough enough, ok?”

TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me, If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

TRUMP: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things...my primary consultant is myself”

TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

TRUMP: “We don't even really know who the leader [of ISIS] is.”
.
TRUMP: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

TRUMP: "I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he's (Putin) getting an 'A,' and our president is not doing so well.”

TRUMP: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event.”

TRUMP: “Our military is a disaster.”

TRUMP: “We have become a third world country, folks.”

TRUMP: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

TRUMP: “When those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go." (Politifact: False.)

TRUMP: “I got to know (Putin) very well, because we were both on 60 minutes, we were stablemates and we did very well that night. You know that.”

TRUMP: "These dummies say, 'Oh, that's a trade war. Trade war? We're losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there's a trade war?”

TRUMP: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."

TRUMP: "And you've got to give Kim Jong Un credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals…. It's incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn't play games.”

TRUMP: “I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly and I’m not going to tell you what is… All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning.”


Trump to Clinton: 'No more Mr. Nice Guy'

U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he was taking the gloves off in his battle against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House after taking a scorching from speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

...

"I'm starting to agree with you, frankly," he said. "No more Mr. Nice Guy."
Starting to agree with people chanting something he said? Hmm.

He claims to have been Mr. Nice Guy so far? D'Jayzuss.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:22 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Lazar wrote:So what you're asking me to do is to throw away my ability to do something that I consider useful and meaningful with my vote (expressing my dissatisfaction with the two-party system in one of the least competitive states), based on the mind-bogglingly infinitesimal chance that Massachusetts will be a swing state.

I'm not asking you to do anything. Vote your conscience. I'm saying that if enough people who believe as you do, in aggregate, stay home or vote a third party ticket, you could effectively depress Democratic turnout. And in any other election that I have participated in, I would say your faith in your state wasn't misplaced. This election I no longer have any idea what people in general are thinking. Currently I am thinking in terms of practicing saying President Trump, and not gagging.