Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Trump changes his position on gun control in the same sentence, but let's pretend that doesn't happen.
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

 whembly wrote:
Are you implying that HRC doesn't change her positions often?
Um, no? Did I say that I was? Nope. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Trump's being a politician for 5 minutes, so of course it's interesting to see him windmill all over the place.
Okay?

Now HRC? She's a different breed.
Well, just because I don't like her doesn't mean I think she's evil incarnate, but okay I guess.

She was to the right of Obama with respect to 2nd Amendment, and now she wants to overturn Heller...

She flip-flopped on Gay Marriage...

SHe was a hardliner against illegal immigration before she's for open border...

She's all over the map.

So, if you're going to ding Trump for political "expediencies"... then HRC's long list of switching positsions (and back!) is fair game too.
Sure, but I'm not talking about Clinton. My world doesn't revolve around her like yours does.

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
Trump changes his position on gun control in the same sentence, but let's pretend that doesn't happen.

Oh... did you mistake me in defending Trump.

Pox on you D... POX!

whembly is still like this cat:

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 01:00:28


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You actually think Trump wouldn't just decide to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court? You're a fool if you think otherwise.

I think there's less risk of him nominating another Sotomayor than there is with Clinton.

Okay, so you found something he said forty years ago and you think that he hasn't changed his mind since then.

Largely because there's been no indication that he has.

That's obviously a problem to you,

And, I suspect, the balance of Americans. "Socialist" still ranks somewhere down with "pond scum" in terms of what the American public at large is willing to elect. I think even a hypothetical atheist polled higher.

but you'll be willing vote for the guy that supported Obama's call for stricter gun control after Newtown four years ago because you think he won't try to feth with our gun rights?

See above. He's less likely to fall into the "shoulder thing that goes up?" camp than Clinton. She won't be speaking to the NRA at any point during this cycle.

Incidentally, I'd suggest actually reading the speech of Obama's he endorsed. For a guy who has a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations...well.

You're right, he did fly to Nicaragua and if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, I would expect him to have his feet held to fire over it. In the same breath, the United States still actively supported the Contras despite the fact that it was illegal to do so.

Oh, dear. You're arguing the legality? That's not what I'm arguing. Supporting anti-communist groups is better than supporting communist ones.

Here's some shocking news for you, I voted for Marco Rubio in Virginia's primary.

That is incredibly shocking, yeah, given your love for spitting fire about "reactionaries" and your support for unions and plenty of other lefty causes.

I don't support Sanders or Clinton or Trump, I just have a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations.

I'm going to have to take your word on that in lieu of evidence.

Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians.

I'm a conservative libertarian. Of course I'm biased against left-wing politicians. Why on earth would you think I would have any trouble 'admitting' an intense distaste for left-wing politics and the people who support them?

Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.

We'll see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 01:32:07


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.


You're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously the rest of the world matters. You might not have noticed but the rest of the world is where I live.

But on the very specific question of who America will be choosing to be their president, then the political opinions of the rest of the world do not matter - what matters is where each candidate sits relative to the American voting population.

You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.


Okay, yeah, you are doing the 'polling doesn't matter because they don't poll everyone thing'. This basically removes you from sensible conversation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 01:58:21


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Seaward wrote:

I'm a conservative libertarian.

Just for clarification, what does that actually entail?

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Seaward wrote:
See above. He's less likely to fall into the "shoulder thing that goes up?" camp than Clinton.
Trump's entire campaign has been "shoulder thing that goes up."

She won't be speaking to the NRA at any point during this cycle.
Good. First off, feth the NRA. Second off, I don't want to listen to her speak anyway.

Incidentally, I'd suggest actually reading the speech of Obama's he endorsed. For a guy who has a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations...well.
Even though I did read it, I didn't need to because I watched the President deliver the speech when it happened. Oh, and I remember the right wing outrage that followed his remarks and the baseless fear that he was going to use EOs to take our AR-15s away and all that nonsense. But here were, four years later and I still have a safe full of "scary" assault weapons and the outrage at what Obama said is forgotten and it doesn't matter that Trump agreed because reasons.

That is incredibly shocking, yeah, given your love for spitting fire about "reactionaries" and your support for unions and plenty of other lefty causes.
Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly? I'm a union member because I'd make half as much money doing what I do if I weren't (and I wouldn't have received training anywhere near as good). My union has a PAC and I hate it because they shouldn't be allowed to have it and all they do is give money away to politicians to pay us lip service. I generally support my union and others, so long as they play by the rules and keep things fair. By the way, you must not know many union members because most of the ones I know are so conservative they make you and Whembly look like Bernie fething Sanders.

I'm going to have to take your word on that in lieu of evidence.
Thanks, I guess.

I'm a conservative libertarian. Of course I'm biased against left-wing politicians. Why on earth would you think I would have any trouble 'admitting' an intense distaste for left-wing politics and the people who support them?
I don't, I'm just making it a point to bring it up because when people are unabashedly biased, it can be hard for them to see through that haze. I'm generally liberal, but I'll give anyone a fair shake because I'm not beholden to a political party or ideology, that and I know how to compromise.

We'll see.
Oh, to be so naive...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I'm a conservative libertarian.

Just for clarification, what does that actually entail?
It's usually what people say when they try to distance themselves from the Republican Party.

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just for clarification, what does that actually entail?


Minimal government interference on economic and social issues, strong defense.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




sorry to say but i'm voting for Trump, not because I believe in him or think he will be a decent president, but because I look at all the loonies in the protests doing so much damage and destruction trying to stop him, i'm thinking his supporters are more calmer then the Democrat supporters are.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

I now we know what happens if some rank-file States employee who voiced concerns about Clinton's personal email system:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-emails-state-report-223574
The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails
The 83-page document provided fresh details about whether the private server was authorized and concerns about hacking attacks.

The State Department's inspector general report on Wednesday offered little absolution for Hillary Clinton or several of her top aides who refused to cooperate with the investigation into the former secretary of state's exclusive use of a private email server.

The 83-page document, which was given to lawmakers and leaked to the press, noted systemic problems with records at the State Department, but zeroed in on Clinton, concluding that she had violated federal rules with her private email server.

In addition to creating another headache for a campaign already struggling to fend off a spirited fight from Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders as it looks toward a general election battle with Donald Trump, the report provided fresh details about whether the private server was authorized and concerns about hacking attacks.
Here are 9 of the biggest revelations in the report:

1. Clinton's email setup was never approved by State security agencies

Even though department policy mandated throughout Clinton's tenure at Foggy Bottom that day-to-day operations should be conducted via authorized means, the IG report found no evidence that the secretary of state "requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."

According to interviews with officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management, Clinton would have had to "to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."

But those officials said they approved no such setup because of department rules and the inherent security risks.

The report said those departments "did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business."

2. Clinton never sought assistance to set up her email system to transmit certain sensitive information

The department's policy also mandated that employees use approved and secure devices to transmit information known as SBU—"sensitive but unclassified"—outside State's OpenNet network, and that if they did so on a regular basis to non-department addresses, they should reach out to the Bureau of Information Resource Management.

"However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU," the report states.

3. The arrangement made staffers nervous—and management told them to keep quiet

The IG report noted that two Information Resources Management staffers had communicated their concerns with their departmental boss in late 2010.

"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the report noted.

The staff member recalled that the director said Clinton's personal system had already been reviewed and approved by legal staff "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further," according to the report's language.

"As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system," the next line of the report reads.

The other staff member who raised concerns said the director stated that the department's mission is to "support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again."

4. Clinton's chief of staff suggested setting up a separate computer

Speaking with senior officials in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat, as well as with Patrick F. Kennedy, the department's under secretary for management, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills in January 2009 suggested that a separate stand-alone computer might be set up for the secretary of state "to enable her to check her emails from her desk."

That discussion came as Clinton expressed her desire to take her BlackBerry in secure areas. Kennedy called it a "great idea" and "the best solution," although the IG report found that no such arrangement was ever made.

5. Clinton worried about 'the personal being accessible'

The report's next bullet point recalls a November 2010 conversation between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff for operations. According to the report, the email discussion centered around emails from Clinton's account not being able to be received by State employees. Abedin suggested, "we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”

Clinton responded: "“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

The former secretary of state declined the OIG's request for an interview, while Abedin did not respond, according to the report.

6. Abedin rejected the idea for Clinton to use two devices

State Department officials in August 2011 discussed providing Clinton with an agency-issued BlackBerry to replace her "malfunctioning" personal BlackBerry because "her personal email server is down." Then-Executive Secretary Stephen D. Mull suggested that he would provide Clinton two devices—“one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.”

Abedin shot down the proposal because it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” The IG did not find any evidence that Clinton received a new device or address after the discussion.

7. Clinton's email system needed troubleshooting

According to emails the OIG said it reviewed from between "2010 through at least October 2012," messages between State Department staff and two individuals who provided technical support for Clinton's email server showed operational issues. "For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach Department email addresses using the state.gov domain," the report states.

Staffers with the office handling information technology for the Office of the Secretary met with a Clinton top technology staffer to resolve the situation. "The issue was ultimately resolved and, on December 21, 2010, S/ES-IRM staff sent senior S/ES staffers an email describing the issue and summarizing the activities undertaken to resolve it," the report stated.

The unnamed Clinton technology staffer also met with staffers in Cyber Threat Analysis Division on another occasion, the report said. The third interaction occurred in late October 2012 when Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the New York City area. An email exchange between Abedin and another member of Clinton's staff "revealed that the server located in Secretary Clinton’s New York residence was down."

The Clinton technology staffer then met with Office of Information Resources Management staffers to see whether State could provide support. According to the report, S/ES-IRM staff said they told the Clinton aide they could not because the server was private.

8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns


The report noted that on Jan. 9, 2011, a non-State technical adviser retained by former President Bill Clinton informed Abedin that he had shut down the server because he thought there was "someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to."

The same person wrote Abedin later the same day, stating, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.”

"On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary 'anything sensitive' and stated that she could 'explain more in person," the report stated, with Abedin being the person who sent the email.

9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel

On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."

Hours after that discussion, an email William Burns, the then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox, carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.

“Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Clinton responded hours later.

The IG report referenced pre-existing department policy requiring employees to report suspicious incidents to Information Resources Management officials when it comes to their attention, including that it is also "required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information."

"However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department," the report states.

So... when the issue was raised as a concern by staff tasked with Information Resource Management (IRM), HRC's crew within the State Department:
1) lied through their teeth and
2) told them to shut up. Not just shut up but NEVER.SPEAK.IT.AGAIN.

This country is so boned.

(note: man, politico really doesn't like the Clintons... makes me think they're staffed largely by Bernie Bros )

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Trump's entire campaign has been "shoulder thing that goes up."

Well, I'm convinced.

Good. First off, feth the NRA. Second off, I don't want to listen to her speak anyway.

I'm starting to wonder if you're intentionally missing the point.

Even though I did read it, I didn't need to because I watched the President deliver the speech when it happened. Oh, and I remember the right wing outrage that followed his remarks and the baseless fear that he was going to use EOs to take our AR-15s away and all that nonsense. But here were, four years later and I still have a safe full of "scary" assault weapons and the outrage at what Obama said is forgotten and it doesn't matter that Trump agreed because reasons.

I think it's more because he didn't actually propose anything in the speech referenced.

Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly?

It's weird to try and claim you're not a supporter of lefty causes when you immediately go on to say...

I'm generally liberal

So you're liberal, you're just surprised other people picked up on it? Or you're surprised that other people would be surprised a self-proclaimed liberal would vote for an economic and social conservative? I'm not sure where your confusion's coming from.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 03:00:28


 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.


You're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously the rest of the world matters. You might not have noticed but the rest of the world is where I live.

But on the very specific question of who America will be choosing to be their president, then the political opinions of the rest of the world do not matter - what matters is where each candidate sits relative to the American voting population.

You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.


Okay, yeah, you are doing the 'polling doesn't matter because they don't poll everyone thing'. This basically removes you from sensible conversation.


I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time. I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times. What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate. Sometimes exit polls call it right, some times they are wrong, it is far from an exact science. Treating it like it is would be foolish as, based on Trump's rise in the Republican party and the shock being expressed by most people, voters are very unpredictable.

Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Whatever Seaward calls himself, he's recognised that it makes sense to vote for whoever your party nominates because one of the biggest differences the president will make is with supreme court nominations. That's something most Republicans, even the ones who call themselves conservative libertarians, have figured out. It's something way too many Democrats fail to realise.

It's a large part of the reason that despite having a much bigger base of support, Democrats continue to lose the important long term fights.

Asterios wrote:
Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.


Fun fact - when you elect a president then it is that elected person who takes office, and not their supporters (noisy or otherwise).

Your post just sounds like a particularly vague kind of tribal voting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 03:16:37


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 sebster wrote:
Whatever Seaward calls himself, he's recognised that it makes sense to vote for whoever your party nominates because one of the biggest differences the president will make is with supreme court nominations. That's something most Republicans, even the ones who call themselves conservative libertarians, have figured out. It's something way too many Democrats fail to realise.

It's a large part of the reason that despite having a much bigger base of support, Democrats continue to lose the important long term fights.

Asterios wrote:
Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.


Fun fact - when you elect a president then it is that elected person who takes office, and not their supporters (noisy or otherwise).

Your post just sounds like a particularly vague kind of tribal voting.


True, but I worry what will happen if Sanders or Clinton get into office more then I worry about Trump since I see his Presidency as a lame duck Presidency.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time.


Polls right now are not determinate because it isn't November. We still have primaries to finish, conventions to hold, debates to argue over, and possibly also some actual real things like economic or global events. Things will change.

That has nothing to do with whether polls are accurate or not. Obviously not every poll is perfect, and they should always be treated with a grain of salt. But to ignore them completely, especially when there's no hint they're wrong, but just because the information runs contrary to what you'd like to think, well that's an exercise in not thinking.

That's how Karl Rove ended up looking like a total idiot on TV, because he ignored polls that told him what he didn't want to hear, and instead went looking for any indicator, no matter how weak, that things weren't as they are. Don't be like Rove - when information is presented then recognise it whether or not it fits with what you'd like to believe.

I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times.


I'm not sure if I'm more puzzled about the claim that I've been proven wrong, or the claim that I have any kind of expertise. All I do is read the handful of sources as other people here on dakka, the only reason I bat slightly higher in my assessments than some others is because I try to remove what I'd like to be true from the data is telling me.

What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate.


It isn't 100%, but it's pretty good, and it's the only real information gathering technique we have, outside of just making up crap that we'd like to be true.

Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.


No, not because you disagree, but because the justification for your disagreement is very bad. If you ignore polls then you basically ignore the only means we have for understanding what people think, and that means removing yourself from the conversation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 03:38:04


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Seaward wrote:
Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly?

It's weird to try and claim you're not a supporter of lefty causes when you immediately go on to say...

I'm generally liberal

So you're liberal, you're just surprised other people picked up on it? Or you're surprised that other people would be surprised a self-proclaimed liberal would vote for an economic and social conservative? I'm not sure where your confusion's coming from.
I'm not sure what you mean by "support liberal causes." I don't go out and protest, I don't sign petitions, I don't #whatever, and I don't donate to political parties or candidates. The only political petition I've ever signed was to allow the Libertarian Party a spot on the ballot even though I don't support them; it was just the right thing to do and it's only fair.

I have this amazing ability to look past my own beliefs and vote for someone I think would do the best job if given the chance. I judge each candidate separately instead of instinctively punching all the ballots with the D or R next to them because that's "what your supposed to do." I guess you could say I'm a political unicorn.... or you know, a moderate.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 11:58:32


 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Asterios wrote:
True, but I worry what will happen if Sanders or Clinton get into office more then I worry about Trump since I see his Presidency as a lame duck Presidency.


That's true, Trump will be extremely limited in getting any kind of legislation through. But then he hasn't actually got a legislative agenda so...

But there's also control over executive, in this political environment that's really the major source of power for presidents, outside of Supreme Court nominations. The idea of Trump being given large influence over major US insitutions like the Dept of Justice or the EPA should worry everyone who understands how important steady, stable insitutions are.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time.


Polls right now are not determinate because it isn't November. We still have primaries to finish, conventions to hold, debates to argue over, and possibly also some actual real things like economic or global events. Things will change.

That has nothing to do with whether polls are accurate or not. Obviously not every poll is perfect, and they should always be treated with a grain of salt. But to ignore them completely, especially when there's no hint they're wrong, but just because the information runs contrary to what you'd like to think, well that's an exercise in not thinking.

That's how Karl Rove ended up looking like a total idiot on TV, because he ignored polls that told him what he didn't want to hear, and instead went looking for any indicator, no matter how weak, that things weren't as they are. Don't be like Rove - when information is presented then recognise it whether or not it fits with what you'd like to believe.

I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times.


I'm not sure if I'm more puzzled about the claim that I've been proven wrong, or the claim that I have any kind of expertise. All I do is read the handful of sources as other people here on dakka, the only reason I bat slightly higher in my assessments than some others is because I try to remove what I'd like to be true from the data is telling me.

What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate.


It isn't 100%, but it's pretty good, and it's the only real information gathering technique we have, outside of just making up crap that we'd like to be true.

Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.


No, not because you disagree, but because the justification for your disagreement is very bad. If you ignore polls then you basically ignore the only means we have for understanding what people think, and that means removing yourself from the conversation.


So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.

Karl Rove is not even remotely the same in this situation. I am saying that exit polls do not represent what a candidates entire voting base thinks. Why you ask? Because I know that it is false because of the people I know who voted for him. But exit polls say that is the way it is, so I guess I am wrong and I really feel that way to? Come on, don't be that guy. That isn't an argument you can back up.

So let me ask you, do you believe that what a few people answer in exit polls that only cover a small number of states is enough to broad stroke an entire voting block of people that covers the entire US?
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.

It's too far out from the election for polls to be able to accurately predict who will win. Depending on the fallout from the conventions, the upcoming Dem vs. Rep debates, October surprises, etc., the polling will become more accurate as we get closer to November. Polls at this point are useful in monitoring how well party/candidate strategies are paying off as the election cycle goes forward.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 07:48:13


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.


Taking exit polls with a grain of salt is one thing, that's probably fairly reasonable. But you aren't looking to just apply a grain of salt, that would mean arguing that while this information exists, it isn't necessarily the complete story. Instead you're looking to dismiss the survey entirely, just ignore its existence.

Applying a grain of salt can be reasonable, especially if you can provide other information that shows an opposing or more complex situation. But just ignoring the survey, as you've attempted, is head in the sand stuff.

Karl Rove is not even remotely the same in this situation. I am saying that exit polls do not represent what a candidates entire voting base thinks. Why you ask? Because I know that it is false because of the people I know who voted for him.


The people you know - that's a sample! That you can talk to people you know who've voted for Sanders and intuitively expand that out to all Sanders voters, but then reject that same process when a sample gives an answer you don't like shows the basic fault in your argument.

The difference, of course, is that exit polls are properly constructed samples, which look to control for demographic and other factors to give a reasonable view of the whole group. Whereas just talking to people you know is a really crappy sample, full of selection bias.

So let me ask you, do you believe that what a few people answer in exit polls that only cover a small number of states is enough to broad stroke an entire voting block of people that covers the entire US?


It isn't a complete, absolute story. But it is informative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Breotan wrote:
It's too far out from the election for polls to be able to accurately predict who will win. Depending on the fallout from the conventions, the upcoming Dem vs. Rep debates, October surprises, etc., the polling will become more accurate as we get closer to November. Polls at this point are useful in monitoring how well party/candidate strategies are paying off as the election cycle goes forward.


You're right on the value of polling to predict the final election outcome, however that wasn't what was being discussed. We were discussing the value of exit polling in finding out why people chose one candidate or another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 08:25:15


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 sebster wrote:
You're right on the value of polling to predict the final election outcome, however that wasn't what was being discussed. We were discussing the value of exit polling in finding out why people chose one candidate or another.

Apparently it's been pretty reliable in the past at predicting a winner before the State actually begins tabulating votes. As for the why, I suppose that depends on the questions the people doing the polls ask and how accurately they track the answers.

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Oi... this is brilliant on Sander's and Trump's part:
Trump, Sanders seemingly agree to debate

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have seemingly agreed in principle to give the world the debate it's been waiting for.

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.

Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.

"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary," he tweeted early Thursday morning.

As of very early Thursday morning, the campaigns had made no formal announcements about reaching any specific agreement for an event. However, Sanders is scheduled to appear on Kimmel's late-night talk show Thursday night.

This needs to happen!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 whembly wrote:
Oi... this is brilliant on Sander's and Trump's part:
Trump, Sanders seemingly agree to debate

This needs to happen!

I'm a little worried about this taking place before the Democrat convention. If Bernie has a poor showing against Trump, it could help solidify Hillary's support and make Bernie a non-factor. Being someone who detests Hillary, I'd rather than not happen.

Also, it appears that Trump has hit the magic number to secure the Republican nomination.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination. Trump has reached 1,238. With 303 delegates at stake in five state primaries on June 7, Trump will easily pad his total, avoiding a contested convention in Cleveland.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 14:56:27


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.


I'm far more worried that it's going to go the other way - that Trump is going to stomp all over Bernie with his usual crassness and bullying.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.

Um... Bernie doesn't need to do that... everyone knows Trump is a "loudmouth bullying weasel clown".

Since Trump has openly encouraged Sanders to go 3rd-party... raising Bernie's stature like might make that option more attractive. You know this will be bigtime TV rating...

So while Trump agreeing to a debate with Sanders while Hillary ducks one will hurt her... what remains to be seen is whether the BernieBros give Trump any credit for this, and votes "not-Hillary" in the General. Not likely... but, what's the harm for trying?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 15:09:21


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

infinite_array wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.


I'm far more worried that it's going to go the other way - that Trump is going to stomp all over Bernie with his usual crassness and bullying.


Bernie can always just wag his finger at him.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Nah, if it happens, which i seriously doubt as Trump is a pretty awful debater and will likely say he was just joking, the Sanders supporters will see just how much Sanders despises Trump. If anything, it will only help Clinton solidify his supporters later.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 whembly wrote:


Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.

This needs to happen!



Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: