2016 Election Thread

[twinsnorth49]

 

The appointments so far seem to indicate the positive news is lipservice.  Ugh.

You're way too smart to be surprised by this.  The people who voted him in might be though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You're way too smart to be surprised by this.  The people who voted him in might be though.

 

Surprised?  No....but could he be handling this any worse?  He's having the establishment come by to kiss his ring and beg before he hands it to his inner circle of Dunce Monkeys.  It's the worst scenario.

 

I'm not surprised, but every now and then I allow myself to hope too.

[nicksaviking]

Ha, we haven't even seen Trump get upset about something yet and use his new found power to retaliate against his underlings.

 

Can't wait for Pence to slip up and get replaced by Trump's son-in-law.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ha, we haven't even seen Trump get upset about something yet and use his new found power to retaliate against his underlings.

 

Can't wait for Pence to slip up and get replaced by Trump's son-in-law.

 

We should make him have a funeral for his time as VP in that case....

[Mr. Brooks]

And what would that look like? The American voters obviously didn't listen or agree with Romney about trump. He isn't joining forces, he would be accepting one of the most important jobs in the cabinet.

Romney said Trump was playing the American public. That he was a phony, a fraud, and his promises were as worthless as a degree from Trump University.

 

If you say those things and then go work for the guy, then you are a fraud.

I'll listen to the argument that we might be in better hands if he gets the position. But that is a separate argument. He'd be a total fraud. Just like "Lyin' Ted."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Romney said Trump was playing the American public. That he was a phony, a fraud, and his promises were as worthless as a degree from Trump University.

If you say those things and then go work for the guy, then you are a fraud.
I'll listen to the argument that we might be in better hands if he gets the position. But that is a separate argument. He'd be a total fraud. Just like "Lyin' Ted."

Or maybe Mitt realizes the nation is hanging upon a precipice and doesn't want to see it fall.

 

I disagree with Romney's politics but I don't consider him a bad person. It's possible he's considering the job simply because he, like the rest of us, is worried that the job is much bigger than Trump and doesn't want to see us crash and burn because his pride got in the way.

 

There are several ways to look at the situation and not all of them involve Romney selling out to Trump.

[twinsnorth49]

Romney selling out to Trump might not be the only answer, but it's the most plausible one.

 

Phony or noble?

 

I know which one I'd go with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Romney selling out to Trump might not be the only answer, but it's the most plausible one.

Phony or noble?

I know which one I'd go with.

It can be both.   Even if his acceptance of such position was based (in part) on nobility, that Romney himself would benefit (prestige, influence, padding his political resume) from Trump's election is phony. 

[nicksaviking]

Romney selling out to Trump might not be the only answer, but it's the most plausible one.

Phony or noble?

I know which one I'd go with.

And I could really care less. He might be the party's most competent leader, I'll take phony in a heartbeat if the alternative is a sociopath with his finger on the nuke button truly surrounded only by 'yes men'. Good lord, please let it be phony and noble.

[Mr. Brooks]

Or maybe Mitt realizes the nation is hanging upon a precipice and doesn't want to see it fall.

 

I disagree with Romney's politics but I don't consider him a bad person. It's possible he's considering the job simply because he, like the rest of us, is worried that the job is much bigger than Trump and doesn't want to see us crash and burn because his pride got in the way.

 

There are several ways to look at the situation and not all of them involve Romney selling out to Trump.

Fair point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You forgot yertle McConnell but even with him, yep.

Damn, forgot about Captain Clownshoe.

 

Well, it's still a net win even with him in the mix.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Most people didn't have a problem with the left, they had a problem with the establishment and Clinton.

Abd by most, I mean less than half.

I think it's more than half. I voted for Clinton but didn't particularly enjoy casting that vote. I think she'd be a competent leader and it'd be nice to have a female president for once but she's in way too deep with Wall St, she's too hawkish, and I don't like the fact her last name is Clinton (not because of Bill but because seeing two families rule the country for the large part of four decades is not a good thing).

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

and churches.....individual people only from now on, maybe PACs.....

 

My two cents on all of this.  It's all true.  Churches, unions, corporations.  Solution is simple. Abolish PACs, and allow all of these to make a donation direct to the candidate with the cap being that of the individual person cap.  Power is gone, and financial donations are forced back into grass roots efforts, with one corporation having just as much say in the process as one person.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Most people didn't have a problem with the left, they had a problem with the establishment and Clinton.

Abd by most, I mean less than half.

 

Most voters had so much problems with the establishment and Clinton that they didn't show up.  Let's not delude ourselves into thinking Clinton had a majority.  She didn't.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

In 2008 I was pressured to go to a fundraiser at Rob Reiner's house for Hillary. I agreed to do it with a promise that I could probably meet with her for 2 or 3 minutes. My plan was to try to persuade her that many voters would love it if she would propose a credible plan for reducing waste and inefficiency.

 

It turned out that I got to meet Hillary for purposes of a quick photo, but that was all. I was prepared for this, and gave her aide a letter setting forth a strategy for saving more than $100 billion per year. I never got any response from Hillary (despite the fact that I paid a LOT to go to the dinner and there were very few female movie stars present to worship), and I voted for Obama in the primary.

 

I agree that the Democrats need a platform that addresses all important issues and I think that Bernie covered a lot of them.  Items that I would add include:

1. Making the government efficient so that more good can be done with fewer dollars.

 

2. Seeking an agreement among the top 10 or 15 military powers to reduce their defense budgets by 2% per year for 20 years, and aggressively seeking peaceful resolution of the underlying conflicts around the world.

 

3. Guaranteeing employment for anyone who is willing to work hard, and at a wage that will allow a decent lower middle class lifestyle. Anyone who is willing to work hard should be able to afford decent, safe housing, nutritious food and reasonable access to health care. We could achieve this by saving $100 billion per year in government waste, gradually cutting our defense budget while making the world safer and by putting people to work on stuff that will improve our overall economy, such as infrastructure, teaching, job training, child care, community policing, social work. People who work hard should not need welfare or food stamps, and it pisses me off that I work 60 hours or more per week while unemployed people could be out there working at least 40 hours doing the types of productive things that I listed above.

 

When I ran for local office, I had a ten point platform. I found that voters liked ideas that made sense. I think that the Democrats would benefit greatly from a detailed platform that makes intuitive sense to all groups.

 

Finally, with respect to the EC, my sense is that it minimizes participation. When I ran for office, I felt that I would do very well in the south central part of town and the southeast, which were the less affluent areas. If there were an EC, I would have focused my efforts on the other areas, knowing that I would win my home base. But there was no EC for school board and a vote from the south was just as important as a vote from the north so I campaigned everywhere. My sense is that absent the EC, both candidates would campaign in all states, because a red vote in California would be just as valuable as a blue vote in Utah, and vice versa. As things stand now, there is no incentive for either party to campaign in the 40 or so states that are solidly red or blue and this seems to me to be about the worst possible system that could be devised that does not involve animal entrails.

 

I wish either side had a plan like this. I've done enough federal work that I can say with confidence that you could reduce the size of the work force in the Federal government by a good 20% without actually cutting into services.  Way too many people just collecting a pay check and just standing in the way to justify their jobs.  If they actually invested in implementing technology, they could modernize too and probably further cut the size/expense.  Right now, the gov. just buys tech and does a half***** job implementing it.  They literally own every piece of tech that an American company makes with zero effort in actually implementing it in a way that reduces costs.

 

This is my concern with Trump's appointments so far. The fact that he's talking to guys like Romney, Cruz, etc. is nothing more than using guys in the system (though in Romney's case, he does have experience running large organizations)...  He'd be wise to stay far away from familiar names and go for successful businessmen and women with an established track record for turning around companies.  That swamp won't be drained putting a guy like Ted Cruz in charge of anything.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Trump side would have adopted, that the election was now a referendum on free enterprise versus socialism.

 

The character assassination of Hillary Clinton was achieved over many years, so that by the end the idea of anyone even having a "private server" was somehow equivalent to treason. But the main concepts of doing so would have carried over just fine if a different candidate had emerged.

 

 

The issue was and continues to be that Hillary was conducting state business from said private server so as to avoid oversight, and was doing so with classified information.

 

I want to be clear that this is one of the largest classified data spills in the history of this country, and there is no way it was accidental...  That data had to be moved off of a classified environment that is designed to prevent the removal of data.

 

The fact that the FBI was doing simple searches for "classified" in the emails should also tell you that HRC and staff made zero effort to scrub the classification marks that appeared on said emails (every email sent on a SIPR network is given a classification designation).  This was no accident, and the only plausible deniability she had was not taking the mandatory training (one I'd add that failure to do results in access termination, and she got around that too).  Add to it that when Obama found out she was doing this, he told her to cease and desist. She didn't.  There's no way that she and her staff were that ignorant. None. 

 

You may not want to call it treason, that's fine. It certainly wasn't her intent, but I can say with 100% certainty that if this were someone like me, I would be praying to God that unemployed was the only thing that would happen to me, and I don't have nearly the access that someone like HRC has to classified data.  So let's stop the pity party for HRC over this. She made some bad choices.  If she had simply decided to play by the rules, this wouldn't have been a campaign distraction.

[USAFChief]

I wish either side had a plan like this. I've done enough federal work that I can say with confidence that you could reduce the size of the work force in the Federal government by a good 20% without actually cutting into services.  Way too many people just collecting a pay check and just standing in the way to justify their jobs.  If they actually invested in implementing technology, they could modernize too and probably further cut the size/expense.  Right now, the gov. just buys tech and does a half***** job implementing it.  They literally own every piece of tech that an American company makes with zero effort in actually implementing it in a way that reduces costs.

 

This is my concern with Trump's appointments so far. The fact that he's talking to guys like Romney, Cruz, etc. is nothing more than using guys in the system (though in Romney's case, he does have experience running large organizations)...  He'd be wise to stay far away from familiar names and go for successful businessmen and women with an established track record for turning around companies.  That swamp won't be drained putting a guy like Ted Cruz in charge of anything.

I have also done a lot of federal work. More than you, I'd wager. And IMO your "cut 20 percent of the bums and nobody would notice" theory is horse****.

[USAFChief]

The issue was and continues to be that Hillary was conducting state business from said private server so as to avoid oversight, and was doing so with classified information.

 

I want to be clear that this is one of the largest classified data spills in the history of this country, and there is no way it was accidental...  That data had to be moved off of a classified environment that is designed to prevent the removal of data.

 

 

Source?

 

The July congressional hearings identified three emails, with portions of two (possibly improperly) marked as Confidential, and one marked Confidential. None of the three were properly marked (as you know, a classified email should have been marked with the proper overall classification, top and bottom. None of the three originated from an email system designed to process classified information.

 

If, as you claim, this was the "largest classified data spill in the history of this country" don't you think the multiple Republican led congressional hearings would have had a different outcome?

[stringer bell]

The exchange here between two mods, both with more experience than the general public about the topic, pretty much summarizes what the media has become. If we want to look for something to crucify Hillary Clinton for, there you have it, sent by a reasonable person with a lot of knowledge. On the other side was another reasonable sort (and military to boot!) who made a totally different case based on the same information.

 

If those of us in the middle have predispositions one way or the other, we can find information to support our view. Just about every browser will present radically different views on issues of the day. It is much harder to discern reality, much less truth than it used to be IMHO.

[USAFChief]

The exchange here between two mods, both with more experience than the general public about the topic, pretty much summarizes what the media has become. If we want to look for something to crucify Hillary Clinton for, there you have it, sent by a reasonable person with a lot of knowledge. On the other side was another reasonable sort (and military to boot!) who made a totally different case based on the same information.

 

If those of us in the middle have predispositions one way or the other, we can find information to support our view. Just about every browser will present radically different views on issues of the day. It is much harder to discern reality, much less truth than it used to be IMHO.

My source: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

[PseudoSABR]

 

The exchange here between two mods, both with more experience than the general public about the topic, pretty much summarizes what the media has become. If we want to look for something to crucify Hillary Clinton for, there you have it, sent by a reasonable person with a lot of knowledge. On the other side was another reasonable sort (and military to boot!) who made a totally different case based on the same information.

 

If those of us in the middle have predispositions one way or the other, we can find information to support our view. Just about every browser will present radically different views on issues of the day. It is much harder to discern reality, much less truth than it used to be IMHO.

And that, my friend, is confirmation-bias. Too few are willing to admit that their predispositions shape not only their conclusions, but their analysis.  

[Craig Arko]

And that, my friend, is confirmation-bias. Too few are willing to admit that their predispositions shape not only their conclusions, but their analysis.

 

Almost a definition of why the scientific method was invented.

[ashbury]

And that, my friend, is confirmation-bias.

Look for confirmation bias and that is what you will find.

[Craig Arko]

Look for confirmation bias and that is what you will find.

No, we all have it, and likely couldn't survive without it. The trick is learning how to recognize it and gain perspective.

[Squirrel]

No, we all have it, and likely couldn't survive without it. The trick is learning how to recognize it and gain perspective.

It's much easier to recognize in others than in oneself.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Until Karl Rove and Colin Powell (and others) are put through the same scrutiny Hillary was put through, the whole issue is 100% phony partisan politics. Is that fair, diehard?

[ashbury]

It's much easier to recognize in others than in oneself.

I'm always on the lookout for it in myself, so of course I find it without much effort.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm always on the lookout for it in myself, so of course I find it without much effort.

I was being a bit ... facetious ... meaning that we often don't like to admit certain things to ourselves, that it is easier to point elsewhere. I was agreeing with what Craig said.

[Craig Arko]

It's much easier to recognize in others than in oneself.

It certainly takes a combination of self-discipline and collaboration to minimize, and that's no sure thing either. But it's the best shot we've got

 

I don't know if it's enough. I've come to doubt it. Meh.

[stringer bell]

So disappointed. I thought I invented something.