|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
@MLL
I think in the 10% scenario, my vote for a third party candidate this election will matter more than 10x as much as a vote for a first party candidate in the 90% scenario.
The Green and Libertarian parties have both been around for at least 30 years. They're likely to continue to exist for the next 4, particularly if they get a bump in popular support this election.
@zlefin
The highlights of the emails (leaked and disclosed) related to the integrity of the Democratic party are:
1) Donors directly buying appointed positions
2) The Democratic National Committee (and several members thereof) violating its neutrality rule during the primary at Bernie Sanders' expense
3) Hints that the executive branch suppressed the FBI investigation of Clinton's email server and was complicit in destroying evidence related to it
If any of these are confirmed by a thorough investigation, it reflects poorly on the Democratic party to such an extent that it could fission over the scandal.
|
|
|
Fission isn't a result of scandal; scandal results in people getting fired and cleaning house, and some people kicked out. It doesn't cause fission of the party; fission is a result of irreconcilable differences in policy goals. (or disputes between leadership)
There have been numerous FAR worse TRUE scandals in the history of america, and in the parties at both national and state level. I mean, this stuff isn't even getting to indictments, let alone convictions.
They didn't show the DNC violating neutrality in a serious way; they showed that some of them had opinions that weren't neutral, and it may've colored a few things. But the DNC didn't act super non-neutral. It's also somewhat odd for them to even be neutral when dealing with someone like Sanders who's a sort-of newcomer to the party, seems odd to me at least.
Hints of investigation suppression could be nothing; there's been a lot of stuff that's made out to be bigger than it actually is. And comey's republican. I think Comey did a thorough job on the investigation, and his testimony before congress covers stuff well.
PS have you watched much cspan? watched the debates on the floor of the house or senate? committee hearings? I'm curious how many of those who talk here do.
|
On October 26 2016 12:46 plasmidghost wrote:
Regarding all the polls are rigged allegations, should the source code of electronic voting machines be made available to the public?
Actually now that I think about this, it's an awful idea that would lead to manipulation by nefarious people
Knowledge of the internal workings of the electronic voting machines shouldn't result in vulnerabilities. Any system that relies on secrecy is flawed. Estonia has released how their internet voting servers work without problems for example (https://github.com/vvk-ehk/evalimine).
However people would just say that the code on the machines is different or w/e, so it wouldn't get rid of the rigging allegations.
|
On October 26 2016 12:46 plasmidghost wrote:
Regarding all the polls are rigged allegations, should the source code of electronic voting machines be made available to the public?
Actually now that I think about this, it's an awful idea that would lead to manipulation by nefarious people
Austin, Texas is attempting to do just that, develop an open source electronic ballot. (source)
And it seems like an improvement over existing voting machines which have been reported vulnerable to both direct tampering and manipulation at the aggregation stage.
|
On October 26 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote:
That Gingrich-Kelly interview was really bad for Newt. If it were any other campaign I would expect him to apologize before morning, but I'm half expecting them to double down on accusing Megyn Kelly of being a slut.
There's a thread from r/the_donald at the top of reddit about that video titled "Watch MEGYN KELLY get DESTROYED by based patriot NEWT GINGRICH!!! Absolutely destroyed."
Doubling down sounds about right.
|
On October 26 2016 13:05 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote:
That Gingrich-Kelly interview was really bad for Newt. If it were any other campaign I would expect him to apologize before morning, but I'm half expecting them to double down on accusing Megyn Kelly of being a slut. There's a thread from r/the_donald at the top of reddit about that video titled "Watch MEGYN KELLY get DESTROYED by based patriot NEWT GINGRICH!!! Absolutely destroyed." Doubling down sounds about right.
that subreddit is one of the most disgusting places on the net
|
|
|
On October 26 2016 12:45 Buckyman wrote:
@MLL
I think in the 10% scenario, my vote for a third party candidate this election will matter more than 10x as much as a vote for a first party candidate in the 90% scenario.
The Green and Libertarian parties have both been around for at least 30 years. They're likely to continue to exist for the next 4, particularly if they get a bump in popular support this election.
@zlefin
The highlights of the emails (leaked and disclosed) related to the integrity of the Democratic party are:
1) Donors directly buying appointed positions
2) The Democratic National Committee (and several members thereof) violating its neutrality rule during the primary at Bernie Sanders' expense
3) Hints that the executive branch suppressed the FBI investigation of Clinton's email server and was complicit in destroying evidence related to it
If any of these are confirmed by a thorough investigation, it reflects poorly on the Democratic party to such an extent that it could fission over the scandal.
This is where I respectfully disagree with your math, because this election is different. In the 90% scenario, there is a fundamental danger both to libertarian and green values alike, and to freedom of speech in general, in electing Trump. So your vote in the central scenario - or lack thereof - matters 2x to 5x more. Let me make my case in a clearer, but hopefully relatively neutral, fashion :
- The guy's foreign policy credentials are notoriously abysmal, as evident from the debates ( his only substantial claims on the timing of US attacks on foreign soil, so the 'when', not 'what' or 'why'). You know the country has effed-up when just his strong poll numbers encourage more whackos like Zhirinovsky to threaten the US with WW3 if he doesn't go through.
- A well-documented lack of self-discipline ( tweeting about Alicia Machado's sex tape at 3AM ? Presidential ? Really ? ).
- Mediocre to poor business ability. The son of a real estate mogul himself, and expelled from school in his youth, you'll find that compounding a conservative estimate of his father's wealth at the long-term risk premium of the stock market, 7%, yields $2.5bn, roughly his net worth in today's dollars. In other words, he'd have been a billionaire just the same, had he bought some SPX and sat on it. If he were in the same league as business titans such as Buffett or Dalio, he'd be worth a hundred times more. Has noone in their right mind questioned how someone who can lose a billion on a litteral cash machine will run the country's finances ?
- A constitutional crisis in waiting, due to sex scandals-induced impeachment procedures should he get elected.
- Repeated attacks on fundamentals of American democracy and patriotism, starting with peaceful transition of power
- An unwillingness to prepare files and show bait-proof temperament that make him an outright threat to national security ( you can't stand up to Billy Bush, have fun playing with Putin ).
- A lack of basic dignity ( making fun of a disabled reporter, insulting the family of a Gold Star veteran ) incompatible with the sober function of Commander-in-Chief
I'm sure you've heard those before. This is even before I get into the 11+ women who are accusing him of sexual misconduct. If you say all of them independently are a coin toss for truth, since he's denied them all, you work out an upper bound probability of him lying of 99.95%.
The TLDR is : Trump's a glorified real estate agent, who spent most of his life in the intellectual abyss of pro-westlers, wannabe beauty queens, and Howard Stern. In a sense America doesn't elect its own leader, but the leader of the free world. Trump's not just unfit - he's plainly damaging and would make the US a laughing stock. The negative implications of the risk of electing someone who can't do without Kellyanne Conway's damage control a single day are much, much, larger than hedging for tail risks.
|
I acknowledge all those points but am not persuaded that Clinton would be a meaningful improvement over Trump, except regarding self-discipline. She would be impeached over obstruction of justice rather than sexual misconduct, however, which I consider more significant for a POTUS.
|
yeah clinton isnt getting impeached, even if the house is gonna make noises about it.
|
On October 26 2016 13:45 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah clinton isnt getting impeached, even if the house is gonna make noises about it.
That's great. I'm sure the spitting image of inequality before the law is going to improve the perspective of a corrupt and biased system that doesn't work.
|
On October 26 2016 13:41 Buckyman wrote:
I acknowledge all those points but am not persuaded that Clinton would be a meaningful improvement over Trump, except regarding self-discipline. She would be impeached over obstruction of justice rather than sexual misconduct, however, which I consider more significant for a POTUS.
This is fair, but I urge you to consider she has a track record as a former partner in a law firm and as a Secretary of State which, at the very least, indicate some degree of competence re my first two, and last two points.
As for impeachment this is speculative and you are right, but again, in her favour, this is one single case versus any of 11 ( and potentially more ) that would await Trump.
I would not necessarily argue for her versus a reasonable Rep such as Ryan or Rubio, but here, my key point is simply the campaign has been damaging to the perception of America, and its priority should be to send a message to the world saying 'we see through populism, and we're better than this'.
|
Trump has one foreign policy point in his favor: He has neither started any wars nor caused the US to become involved in any existing armed conflict. Thanks to Hillary's term as SoS, she can't claim as much.
Also, Hillary's FBI testimony casts doubt on how valuable her SoS experience actually is.
----
Regarding the 11 accusations, I find it quite suspicious that they all waited until a few weeks before the election and then all came forwards at once. I would have expected some of them to come out during the extended primaries if they weren't deliberately timing it to cause a Clinton presidency.
----
Finally, I'm not voting in a swing state. The only scenario in which the state is even contested (within, say, 5%) is if it's the victim of incompetently executed election fraud. On the other hand, my vote for a 3rd party would get pooled nationwide towards the 5% recognition threshold and is therefore far more likely to be relevant.
|
On October 26 2016 14:21 Buckyman wrote:
Trump has one foreign policy point in his favor: He has neither started any wars nor caused the US to become involved in any existing armed conflict. Thanks to Hillary's term as SoS, she can't claim as much.
That's just because thank God he hasn't had a chance to. Just his comment about giving nuclear weapons to Japan would have China throw a fit ( and possibly a test missile or two ) over the Senkaku islands overnight.
Regarding the 11 accusations, I find it quite suspicious that they all waited until a few weeks before the election and then all came forwards at once. I would have expected some of them to come out during the extended primaries if they weren't deliberately timing it to cause a Clinton presidency.
This is very true, and slightly disturbing. Obviously some of them have been coordinated, and I would find very little credence in, say, the allegations of an adult film star. This is why I've used 'upper bound' for probability earlier. But say Salma Hayek, herself the wife of a billionaire, has come forward as well recently, and Trump has admitted to groping as his MO in the Access Hollywood tapes, so that really shouldn't come across as a surprise ; the timing doesn't make it less true. Trump hasn't denied the veracity of the tapes. Two wrongs don't make a right : simply because dem spin doctors are busy digging out dirt with cash doesn't mean there's no dirt in the first place.
Finally, I'm not voting in a swing state. The only scenario in which the state is even contested (within, say, 5%) is if it's the victim of incompetently executed election fraud. On the other hand, my vote for a 3rd party would get pooled nationwide towards the 5% recognition threshold and is therefore far more likely to be relevant.
You know where you are voting, obviously  A swing state is a domestic concern. Where we ultimately disagree is on the value to yourself of America's international standing. I think it's an asset that translates directly into the safety of its citizen and their economic well-being. Where America is perceived as strong, trade deals go ever so slightly in its favour. Where America is perceived as friendly, terrorists have a harder time training recruits. Where it is seen as weak and angry, it stands to be exploited and meddled with. There is only one candidate in this election that improves how America is seen across the world. If they're 'all the same' to you, all I'm asking is for you to consider maximizing the global value of your vote.
|
On October 26 2016 14:21 Buckyman wrote:
Regarding the 11 accusations, I find it quite suspicious that they all waited until a few weeks before the election and then all came forwards at once. I would have expected some of them to come out during the extended primaries if they weren't deliberately timing it to cause a Clinton presidency..
Women did come out with allegations of Trump sexually assaulting them long before a few weeks before the end of the election. Why wouldn't they want to come out on their own? A lot of people would be afraid of coming out against a notoriously litigious billionaire that has gathered such a spirited following. Without some impetus, like the audio tape of Trump himself describing how he likes to sexually women, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how the personal cost of making accusations on their own would outweigh the benefits. That isn't to say that all claims of sexual assault/harassment are true but they should be taken seriously. You shouldn't be so willing to brush them off just because you can imagine some ulterior motive. Not everything is a conspiracy.
|
On October 26 2016 14:21 Buckyman wrote:
Also, Hillary's FBI testimony casts doubt on how valuable her SoS experience actually is.
I've seen this argument made multiple times, and I honestly can't make any sense of it.
Did Clinton do a shitty job as SoS? Yes. Does that make experience worth less than someone with no experience? Of course not. That's the entire idea of experience being a good thing--you got to make some mistakes the first time, learned from them, and therefore will do better than someone who is doing it for the first time because you won't repeat the same mistakes while they're likely to make the same fuckups you did the first time around.
The only way you could make the "no experience is better than experience when she did a shitty job the first time" argument make any sense is if you're arguing that Trump is some kind of FP prodigy where even without any experience, he will avoid the pitfalls of a political novice. When all evidence is to the contrary--that Trump is woefully underinformed about how foreign policy works and will be unable to intelligently pursue his FP goals.
The argument would hold more water if her opponent was a veteran politician with a similar resume, who could draw upon comparable experience less fraught with fuck-ups. But that's not what we got. We got an incompetent political novice, so yes, even experience where someone made a lot of mistakes is a distinct advantage over someone who has none.
|
On October 26 2016 03:32 zlefin wrote:
bio -> I couldn't fidn the article I was looking for.
Were you referring to this article, and to Clinton's "New College Compact" plan in particular (and how it got ignored by the press at the time)?
|
On October 26 2016 15:29 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 14:21 Buckyman wrote:
Regarding the 11 accusations, I find it quite suspicious that they all waited until a few weeks before the election and then all came forwards at once. I would have expected some of them to come out during the extended primaries if they weren't deliberately timing it to cause a Clinton presidency.. Women did come out with allegations of Trump sexually assaulting them long before a few weeks before the end of the election. Why wouldn't they want to come out on their own? A lot of people would be afraid of coming out against a notoriously litigious billionaire that has gathered such a spirited following. Without some impetus, like the audio tape of Trump himself describing how he likes to sexually women, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how the personal cost of making accusations on their own would outweigh the benefits. That isn't to say that all claims of sexual assault/harassment are true but they should be taken seriously. You shouldn't be so willing to brush them off just because you can imagine some ulterior motive. Not everything is a conspiracy.
See also: Roger Ailes. Ailes abused women who worked for him for decades. But until a very famous woman with nothing to lose came out against him, the rest of the ones who really needed their jobs stayed silent. Also Cosby. Once the first three came out after the Burress sketch the rest flooded out into the open. One accuser begets another because no one wants to be the first one.
|
On October 26 2016 15:30 TheYango wrote:
Did Clinton do a shitty job as SoS? Yes. Does that make experience worth less than someone with no experience? Of course not. That's the entire idea of experience being a good thing--you got to make some mistakes the first time, learned from them, and therefore will do better than someone who is doing it for the first time because you won't repeat the same mistakes while they're likely to make the same fuckups you did the first time around.
Plenty depends on the advisers too.Maybe we can give Clinton the benefit of the doubt with a few of her bad calls, It's possible they were due to bad advice from her advisers.More wikileaks stuff is coming out daily so thats a gold mine for this kind of info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
