|
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. |
On November 16 2016 19:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 19:29 Sbrubbles wrote: The thing about the EC that would really bother me, if I were american, is not how people in small states are worth more than people in large states (that's a valid mechanism for a working federalist pact imo), but how opposition in decidedly non-swing states is worth practically nothing. It seems unfair to republicans in california and democrats in texas, or, in the case of this election, unfair to rural areas in california and urban areas in texas. What's the argument for delegates being winner take all and is it not solvable by simply giving more weight to smaller states? That has nothing to do with the EC. It's called the first past the post system. The UK has it as well for their parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
I could have phrased it better, but that doesn't answer my question.
Edit: my problem isn't with the specific voting system used to pick the "state winner", but the idea that there has to be a single "state winner". There seems to be states that can split the delegates in one way or another (Maine and Nebraska). Hope that clears things up for you.
|
On November 16 2016 20:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump’s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law.
Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect’s transition team without explanation, but one report attributed it to a “Stalinesque purge”.
Late on Tuesday, Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture, tweeting that the transition process was “very organized”. He also wrote that only he knew who “the finalists” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice.
A week after his election, Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington.
Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent. He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “on the complex national security challenges facing our great country”.
The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared. Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is mired in political scandal, and replaced him with Pence.
NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “Stalinesque purge” of people close to Christie. “Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs,” the network reported. Source “Stalinesque purge”? I somehow doubt Trump had Mike Rogers executed
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On November 16 2016 20:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 20:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump’s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law.
Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect’s transition team without explanation, but one report attributed it to a “Stalinesque purge”.
Late on Tuesday, Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture, tweeting that the transition process was “very organized”. He also wrote that only he knew who “the finalists” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice.
A week after his election, Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington.
Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent. He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “on the complex national security challenges facing our great country”.
The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared. Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is mired in political scandal, and replaced him with Pence.
NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “Stalinesque purge” of people close to Christie. “Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs,” the network reported. Source “Stalinesque purge”? I somehow doubt Trump had Mike Rogers executed Along with 700.000 others ... Yeah seems a bit of an exaggeration.
|
On November 16 2016 20:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 20:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump’s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law.
Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect’s transition team without explanation, but one report attributed it to a “Stalinesque purge”.
Late on Tuesday, Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture, tweeting that the transition process was “very organized”. He also wrote that only he knew who “the finalists” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice.
A week after his election, Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington.
Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent. He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “on the complex national security challenges facing our great country”.
The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared. Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is mired in political scandal, and replaced him with Pence.
NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “Stalinesque purge” of people close to Christie. “Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs,” the network reported. Source “Stalinesque purge”? I somehow doubt Trump had Mike Rogers executed
That was my first reaction, too. If you can still find Mike Rogers, and he isn't either dead or starving in a Gulag, whatever happened is not a "Stalinesque purge". I am getting more and more annoyed at this need to formulate everything as sensationalist as possible.
|
I recommend people to look at the selection process for the Dutch government with LPF (Balkenende 1), and the utterly disastrous choices that were made. Utterly incompetent idiots like Nawijn and Heinsbroek were put in charge of important cabinet posts (Immigration and Economy)... it was probably the most disastrous government we have had in the last 30 years (maybe since WW2, but I am not old enough to remember), and the populist influence there was heavily mitigated by having the CDA and VVD (two centrist right wing parties) in the coaltion and occupy most of the cabinet positions.
A populist leader is somewhat okay: they are generally charismatic and their main ideas are infeasible pipe dreams; just look at Trump dropping all his "promises", or Geert Wilders dropping his retirement age promise, which he campaigned heavily on, the very day (might even have been the same night) after the elections in 2010. The main problem is that they are almost never surrounded by competent policy people who can actually do the hard work of governing a country. So the US will either end up governed by a generic Republican neocon government (Bush 3.0, and probably the best option you can hope for) or by idiotic Trump stooges (Bannon) and Republican has-beens (Giuliani, Gingrich), none of which have a competent team to actually run the country. I guess there is a 3rd option: Pence brings in his socially conservative friends... in which case move to Canada if you are not a cis-white male.
|
On November 16 2016 20:49 Acrofales wrote: I recommend people to look at the selection process for the Dutch government with LPF (Balkenende 1), and the utterly disastrous choices that were made. Utterly incompetent idiots like Nawijn and Heinsbroek were put in charge of important cabinet posts (Immigration and Economy)... it was probably the most disastrous government we have had in the last 30 years (maybe since WW2, but I am not old enough to remember), and the populist influence there was heavily mitigated by having the CDA and VVD (two centrist right wing parties) in the coaltion and occupy most of the cabinet positions.
A populist leader is somewhat okay: they are generally charismatic and their main ideas are infeasible pipe dreams; just look at Trump dropping all his "promises", or Geert Wilders dropping his retirement age promise, which he campaigned heavily on, the very day (might even have been the same night) after the elections in 2010. The main problem is that they are almost never surrounded by competent policy people who can actually do the hard work of governing a country. So the US will either end up governed by a generic Republican neocon government (Bush 3.0, and probably the best option you can hope for) or by idiotic Trump stooges (Bannon) and Republican has-beens (Giuliani, Gingrich), none of which have a competent team to actually run the country. I guess there is a 3rd option: Pence brings in his socially conservative friends... in which case move to Canada if you are not a cis-white male. Also important to note that Balkenende 1 was only in power for 5 months before the internal unrest killed it and new elections were announced. The netherlands has constitutional protection against disfunctional governments, the US doesn't have nearly as robust a system, believing in "If it doesnt work we are better of doing nothing for 4 years rather then fix it".
|
It may well end up in the paper shredder, but a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Donald Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security.
The Center for Climate & Security in its briefing book argues that climate change presents a risk to U.S. national security and international security, and that the United States should advance a comprehensive policy for addressing the risk. The recommendations, released earlier this year, were developed by the Climate and Security Advisory Group, a voluntary, nonpartisan group of 43 U.S.-based senior military, national security, homeland security and intelligence experts, including the former commanders of the U.S. Pacific and Central commands.
The briefing book argues that climate change presents a significant and direct risk to U.S. military readiness, operations and strategy, and military leaders say it should transcend politics. It goes beyond protecting military bases from sea-level rise, the military advisers say. They urge Trump to order the Pentagon to game out catastrophic climate scenarios, track trends in climate impacts and collaborate with civilian communities. Stresses from climate change can increase the likelihood of international or civil conflict, state failure, mass migration and instability in strategically significant areas around the world, the defense experts argue.
Trump hasn’t weighed in on climate change as a national security threat, although he has called climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.
Many military leaders say that considering climate change and renewable energy has made their branches more resilient fighting forces and bureaucracies, starting with reducing emissions and creating a nimble fighting culture that is less dependent on fossil fuels. By reducing their carbon footprint, they become a combatant in the war on rising global temperatures, military leaders say.
But considering climate change a national security problem remains controversial, especially among Republicans.
An executive directive issued in January within the Department of Defense required Pentagon agencies to take climate change into account and to consider its effects when developing plans and implementing procedures.
And President Obama in September ordered federal defense and intelligence agencies to consider the effects of a warming planet in the national security policies, plans and doctrines they develop (ClimateWire, Sept. 22).
The memo requires 20 federal agencies to collaborate to make sure decisionmakers have the best available information on climate change impacts and their potential threats to national security. The agencies are as varied as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which gather scientific observations on climate, and the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense, which analyze intelligence and develop national security policy.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Not sure what people think of the Observer, but in this case the writing is good and the article is quite well-sourced. Obama blames Clinton for being arrogant in her approach towards potential voters and doing a horrible job of appealing to people properly.
A common complaint against Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign was that she came off to voters as cold and highly scripted. WikiLeaks emails released from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta revealed her campaign staff debated back and forth about what to have her say, often without any input from Clinton herself. The campaign’s response to the disconnect Clinton had with voters was to rely on data driven from a computer algorithm named Ada rather than hold more press conferences to personally address voters’ concerns, or hold more town halls and appearances in working class communities.
“Ada is a complex computer algorithm that the campaign was prepared to publicly unveil after the election as its invisible guiding hand,” reported The Washington Post. “Named for a female 19th-century mathematician—Ada, Countess of Lovelace—the algorithm was said to play a role in virtually every strategic decision Clinton aides made, including where and when to deploy the candidate and her battalion of surrogates and where to air television ads—as well as when it was safe to stay dark.”
In short, a campaign whose candidate suffered from complaints about appearing too robotic put all bets on a robot. And Clinton partisans wonder why she lost.
Clinton didn’t make any appearances in Wisconsin and didn’t show up in Michigan until very late in the election. Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Clinton in both states during the Democratic primaries, despite the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Party working on behalf of her candidacy.
President Barack Obama recently explained Clinton lost because she failed to show up at a lot of places throughout the country.
“One of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is, given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grass-roots level, something that’s been a running thread in my career,” Obama told reporters on November 14, preceding a trip he is taking to Greece, Germany and Peru. “You know, I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points.”
Obama added, “There are some counties maybe I won that people didn’t expect because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for.” But instead, the Clinton campaign falsely assumed it could ride on the coattails of Obama’s approval ratings and previous success in grassroots campaigning, without having to do any of the work themselves.
Clinton and her loyal supporters have yet to hold themselves accountable for her loss. It wasn’t Russia, WikiLeaks, FBI Director James Comey, Facebook, third parties, Sanders, sexism or the media’s fault. It was Clinton and the DNC‘s for being grossly out of touch with voters.
Their strategy was focused on wealthy donors and elites. The Clinton campaign responded to Donald Trump‘s wealth by touting billionaires Mark Cuban, Warren Buffett, Meg Whitman and Michael Bloomberg as surrogates. They reveled in fundraising nearly twice as much as Trump, with over $200 million from Super PACs.
During a time in which both political parties were experiencing a rise in resentment toward big money and the elitist status quo, Clinton embraced the elitism that the family has taken solace in since Bill left the White House. Hillary assumed all that corporate money would grease her campaign wheels, allowing her to coast into the White House. This tactic backfired miserably, though it was obvious to anyone not depending solely on a computer algorithm that this was self-destructive from the start. Source
|
Which actually supports the rumors a few months ago that the Clinton camp was ignoring Obama's advice concerning their ground game etc.
But I'm sure the DNC elites like DWS etc. are making notes that will help try and prepare Clinton who will consider running again in 2020.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
She's not getting another chance. She could try but there is no way that she is going to be able to put together another coalition of establishment consensus to give her a chance to win another primary. And she will be remembered worse than Romney, who managed to get some "foresight cred" for his widely mocked but mostly perceived to be prescient statements about various events.
|
Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case.
|
I interacted directly with mid-level Hillary campaign staff and after one 10 minute phonecall, I decided that working the campaign was not for me. The woman I spoke with could not have come off more condescending, and y'all know me, when I'm saying that, something is terribly wrong.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case. What you're basically saying is, "why can't we give James Comey some blame too for this?" Because what's really at the core of this is the macro-issues. Did the letter Comey sent hurt Clinton's chances of victory? I'm sure no one would say otherwise. Did it cause a two percent shift in the swing states? Probably not. Was there a deeper issue that led to that narrative becoming much more potent than it could have been? Absolutely.
The DNC and Podesta leaks weren't effective in a vacuum. If, for example, the same stuff was leaked in 2012 about Obama's campaign staffers the outrage would be much less consequential. A minor affair blew into a deadly campaign issue because of the macro issue of how poorly the Clinton campaign conducted itself.
Do you blame the people who leaked the Romney "47 percent" tape for his loss? If so, how much blame do you assign to them relative to the person who actually said it and actively allowed that image of himself to be believable?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A second-hand account from someone who talked with Billy Clinton on what he had to say about the Comey blame game. Again, source of some questionability, but the content is valid.
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.
"I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign's momentum," said one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers.
"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
"Bill was so red in the face during his conversation with Hillary that I worried he was going to have a heart attack. He got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River."
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
"Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt," the source explained. "Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class."
According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the ground that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.
"Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama," the source continued. "Despite more and more government assistance, blacks weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence."
Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
"A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers," said the source. "He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.
"Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said."
Source
The "too arrogant to understand why she lost" narrative builds more and more clout as people who actually ran charismatic campaigns tell her that she did a bad job. Though that does assume that a tabloid writer is giving a valid account of his conversations with ol' Billy, which in this case seems reasonable enough.
|
I don't know how much blame i'd assign in the case you say, but there's a rather big difference in the leaking of a tape by someone at a dinner and what the FBI guy did. and i'm not sure how much relative blame to assign, it also depends on whether one is using blame in the sense that someone did something wrong, or using blame simply as a shorthand for assigning causation and reasons for something occurring regardless of anything improper.
And yes, you seem to understand my point fine. I just dislike when people try to say it all comes down to X, or all the blame needs to go on Y. rather than accepting a more nuanced answer, wherein blame and causation are attributed to many different factors. In particular a lot of people who are predisposed to being anti-clinton tend to try to put everything on her, rather than letting blame&causation be spread around some.
I am fully aware that in terms of self-improvement and doing better next time the most important thing is to focus on what you do, because you can't control what anyone else does; that's basic lessons from dota. And i'm fully aware of, and have repeatedly complained about, the flaws in hillary's campaigning.
|
On November 16 2016 16:59 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 16:09 LemOn wrote: Yeah these protests seem really dumb to me - not accepting clear election results, and being people that didn't even vote lol.
Stay home, hit the streets and show activism when specific policies start to get proposed I say! The "wait until something happens proposal??" :/ As soon as Bannon and Ebell got announced there was legitimate reason to protest.
Exactly. Are people serious with this watch and wait shit?
|
On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case.
It's not really surprising to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight.
I generally have the impression that Legal is a smart guy, but he obviously has a strong dislike of Clinton and lets that severely impede his view of her. For goodness sakes, he's posting garbage from a Newsmax gossip columnist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case. It's not really surprising to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight. A lot of people did criticize Clinton before the fact for her mind-numbing arrogance, of course. The difference is that we didn't expect those factors to coalesce into a loss.
It's 20/20 in hindsight but it's only slightly harder to see in foresight that it was a bad idea. The real surprise is the result.
On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I generally have the impression that Legal is a smart guy, but he obviously has a strong dislike of Clinton and lets that severely impede his view of her. For goodness sakes, he's posting garbage from a Newsmax gossip columnist. Aw, that's not really fair. I qualified that it was a questionable source with a tabloid writer posting.
Besides, what's a better time to trash Clinton than when she lost by playing the campaign stupidly?
|
On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case. It's not really surprising to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight. Those of us who pushed for Bernie during the Primaries might call it something different but yes, there's no doubt that a lot of people are being a bit too incisive with their backwards glance criticism. Nothing will change the fact that a lot of people, myself included, were caught off guard by the election results.
|
On November 16 2016 23:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case. It's not really surprising to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight. Those of us who pushed for Bernie during the Primaries might call it something different  but yes, there's no doubt that a lot of people are being a bit too incisive with their backwards glance criticism. Nothing will change the fact that a lot of people, myself included, were caught off guard by the election results.
Bernie was still a weaker candidate. Sure he got some thing more right than Clinton, but he was wrong on plenty others. And I hope you're not one of those who think he would have survived the general.
On November 16 2016 23:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I generally have the impression that Legal is a smart guy, but he obviously has a strong dislike of Clinton and lets that severely impede his view of her. For goodness sakes, he's posting garbage from a Newsmax gossip columnist. Aw, that's not really fair. I qualified that it was a questionable source with a tabloid writer posting. Besides, what's a better time to trash Clinton than when she lost by playing the campaign stupidly?
Garbage is garbage at 2 am and 7 am.
|
|
|
|