News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[BillTre]

Would not surprise me if its true (politics!), but the guy making the video is a know faker of videos.

 

[DiracPool]

Maybe that makes me naive and maybe I won't see it until it's too late whereas you/others are seeing it before it happens. But to me this just looks like an extension of the early "Trump is a fascist/Nazi" rhetoric that opened the door for wild speculation that he could do anything a an actual 1930s fascist/Nazi might have done. Which to me sounds far fetched, to put it mildly.

I've tried my best to stay away from the political arguments here because I've been admonished by an admin/staff member(s) when I've spoken. You can read the transcripts. However, I feel a devotion to this community to state what I think in the spirit of American democracy and free speech and if the admin/mentors want to ban me permanently then go right ahead.

Here's the deal. This election is too important to equivocate on. IMHO, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution. This whole deal of rigged elections is a classic case of a paranoid delusional individual.

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people. There's 20 days to decide.

 

[OmCheeto]

My sister send me another item today, regarding the Clintons and Haiti.
I researched it, and found some truth in it, but nothing to get riled up about.
The story she supplied me, was a bit on the hyperbolic side, to say the least.
And I told her that, and asked if she ever researched any of these stories, or just believed every bad thing said about the Clintons.

Her response was interesting; "I have been watching the corruption of the Clintons unfold for years. I don't have to dissect every breath they take."

I'm curious, what percentage of people, like her, made up their minds years ago, that the Clintons are all a bunch of crooks, and nothing will change their mind on the matter.

If that's the case, then I'll just unsubscribe from the thread, again. No point in wasting any more time, really.

ps. I may lurk around though. I'm curious how big a deal the new Poopergate scandal is going to be.

 

[Orodruin]

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people. There's 20 days to decide.

Well, according to the polls and the FiveThirtyEight probabilistic models, it seems that many have already realized that they do not want Trump's finger on the Red Button (or whatever other reason). Their current estimate is that Clinton is more likely to win Texas than Trump is to win the election. Not only that, but it would seem that all the commotion of republicans pulling Trump support or not has resulted in the democrats now having a 3-in-4-chance of gaining control over the senate as well after being essentially a toss-up a week ago. Let us see how the third debate changes these numbers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't like Donald Trump. I also don't like Message #1402. If that message were instead about Hillary Clinton as being an unacceptable candidate, it would have been removed. Instead it's "liked" by the staff.

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time. Pollsters have learned to correct the raw sampling data on the left-right axis, but that's not really the axis this election is about: it's the elitist-deplorable axis. We simply have little experience with this: the Brexit polls, which have some similarities, were 6 points off the actual referendum. I would not be surprised if they were off by more than this - in either direction.

 

[jim hardy]

Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution.

Sounds speculative to me.

If you watched that recent Frontline "Choice 2016" , the one that goes back to early childhood of both ,

they were both pushed to achieve by fathers - one who controlled with shaming and withholding approval , the other with "setting the bar" impossibly high
One retreated into secretiveness and manipulativeness
One compensated by braggadocio and flamboyance
one set out to change the world
and one fell into the Hugh Heffner trap of hedonism and ego
Source: that Frontline
I'd say they're both scarred .

Behind the door waits either a lady, a gentleman , or a tiger.
How does one quantify the relative dangerousnesses ?

Out of 300 million people how'd we pick these two ?

 

[Orodruin]

I don't like Donald Trump. I also don't like Message #1402. If that message were instead about Hillary Clinton as being an unacceptable candidate, it would have been removed. Instead it's "liked" by the staff.

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time. Pollsters have learned to correct the raw sampling data on the left-right axis, but that's not really the axis this election is about: it's the elitist-deplorable axis. We simply have little experience with this: the Brexit polls, which have some similarities, were 6 points off the actual referendum. I would not be surprised if they were off by more than this - in either direction.

While I do agree on the absolute scale, I do think that these models are rather sensitive to which direction the wind blows in. Even with an average polling error at the level of the Brexit vote, Clinton would still be competitive. FiveThirtyEight also had an article on this a few weeks back comparing the situations. Their conclusion was that it was certainly a possibility that Clinton was being overrated, but not as clearly as for Brexit. An argument could even be made for the polls underestimating Clinton's lead based on polling demographics. On my mobile currently so I have some difficulties digging it out.

 

[Bystander]

Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time.

'Tis the time for the mythical (or not) "silent majority" to make their voices heard. If 2016 doesn't do it, they do not exist.

 

[Student100]

Here's the deal. This election is too important to equivocate on. IMHO, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution. This whole deal of rigged elections is a classic case of a paranoid delusional individual.

Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people.

Pure hyperbole. Playing an armchair psychiatrist is silly.

One, the president isn't all that powerful with nuclear weapons or in general. They're much more just a figurehead for the state. Back to nuclear weapons, there is no "nuclear button." He can unilaterally decide that an attack should be made, but during the verification process the SecDef needs to verify the order. He can't veto the decision, but that doesn't mean he can't refuse to preform the verification. Then it goes through a whole chain of two person integrity before any missiles are actually launched. Also, the joint chiefs are informed of the decision, so there are many possible breaks in the chain if the president just loses his mind and wants to nuke Hawaii or something.

Further, Trump was at one time a vocal critic of nuclear proliferation. You may not agree with with everything he says, but he's right on that.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I agree with last posts by Vanadium50 and Bystander. Just like we were surprised by Clinton's defeat in the Michigan primary, we could be in for another surprise on November 8.

 

[Bystander]

with last posts by Vanadium50 and Byst

If I had to wager? I'd wager on "non-existence" and parlay that with a resoundingly low participation on the "featured" contest. Overall turnout may actually be higher, but there are going to be a lot of blanks cast for "pestilence of the country."

 

[Astronuc]

One new poll has independent presidential candidate, Evan McMullin, surging into the lead in Utah
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/poll-independent-presidential-candidate-surges-202121949.html

I wonder if he could do as well in other states. RealClearPolitics has him trailing Trump and Clinton.

A http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1478138886/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLndpeC5jb20vdWdkLzNiZWJiMl85OGZlOGIzNTU5ZjY0OTYwYTU3M2VjYWQ3ZGMyMmVjOS5wZGYA/RS=%5EADAUjZeUKB0gVD8YJhdgNAFlM8ykzs- showed McMullin leading the pack in Utah with 31% support. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came in second with 27%, followed by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with 24%. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 5% of the overall support.

The poll found that 51% of Utah voters who backed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the primary now say they are voting for McMullin. Just 29% of Cruz voters in Utah are leaning toward Trump, per the poll.

 

[Astronuc]

Both are long time Democratic operatives with a public record. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sbfoval , Bob Creamer.

Two Democratic operatives lose jobs after James O'Keefe sting
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Two-Democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-James-9983970.php

I agree with Gingrich that the FBI needs to be investigating this matter.

 

[SixNein]

I thought I would drop by and throw my own two cents into this heap.

My view is that this election has set some very dangerous precedents that will probably live with us long after this election is over. In my view, the willingness of Russia to to engage cyber weapons in attempts to influence and disrupt the election process coupled with how it was received by the public along with a fairly muted response will almost certainly invite future attempts. There has been a sort of acceptability of it if for no other reason than political partisanship. That scares me.

 

[SixNein]

I thought I would drop by and throw my own two cents into this heap.

My view is that this election has set some very dangerous precedents that will probably live with us long after this election is over. In my view, the willingness of Russia to to engage cyber weapons in attempts to influence and disrupt the election process coupled with how it was received by the public along with a fairly muted response will almost certainly invite future attempts. There has been a sort of acceptability of it if for no other reason than political partisanship. That scares me.

I will give a ++ to Marco Rubio who is the first Republican I've seen that has came out who seems to understand the gravity of this situation:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/49852...ampaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2045

 

[Student100]

I thought I would drop by and throw my own two cents into this heap.

My view is that this election has set some very dangerous precedents that will probably live with us long after this election is over. In my view, the willingness of Russia to to engage cyber weapons in attempts to influence and disrupt the election process coupled with how it was received by the public along with a fairly muted response will almost certainly invite future attempts. There has been a sort of acceptability of it if for no other reason than political partisanship. That scares me.

There's no clear and convincing evidence (beyond highly circumstantial evidence that's been released anyway) that Russia is involved.

All countries interfere in the elections of foreign nations, either covertly or possibly in a more overt fashion. The US can't claim innocence here, and it's been going on much longer than this one election cycle here.

All the released material hasn't been proven to be doctored in anyway. Candidates should one, be smarter about electronic correspondence that they don't want repeated in public, two, not have "public and private positions" on issues, three, naturally assume that by running for the highest office it infringes on their right to privacy, four, have the integrity to do the right thing even when it's perceived that no one is looking.

This whole hacking thing is a non-issue.

 

[SixNein]

There's no clear and convincing evidence (beyond highly circumstantial evidence that's been released anyway) that Russia is involved.

Multiple independent cyber security companies point to russia in addition to our own government's cyber security experts.

We will have to agree to disagree on the use of cyber weapons.

 

[Student100]

`

Multiple independent cyber security companies point to russia in addition to our own government's cyber security experts.

We will have to agree to disagree on the use of cyber weapons.

Do you have links to these independent cyber security companies and their findings?

 

[Student100]

For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0b9654-8cbf-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html

An online persona calling himself Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for posting the material. Those sites and that persona are “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the joint statement said. “. . . We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

I don't consider this convincing evidence.

The Kremlin on Friday dismissed the administration’s accusation.“This is some sort of nonsense,” said Dmitry Peskov, press secretary for Putin. “Every day, Putin’s site gets attacked by tens of thousands of hackers. Many of these attacks can be traced to U.S. territory. It’s not as though we accuse the White House or Langley of doing it each time it happens.

I also kind of agree here, just because an attack appears to originate in Russia, by no means does it have to be a state sponsored hacker or even actually originate in that country.

If you have something more tangible, I'm certainty open to changing my position on responsibility, but it still wouldn't change the overall conclusion that this sort of activity is par for the course for intelligence agencies.

 

[SixNein]

`
Do you have links to these independent cyber security companies and their findings?

Are you incapable of doing a search?
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...nd-dnc-breach-says-fidelis-cybersecurity.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/26/dnc-email-leak-russian-hack-guccifer-2
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...p-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/

 

[Student100]

Are you incapable of doing a search?
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...nd-dnc-breach-says-fidelis-cybersecurity.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/26/dnc-email-leak-russian-hack-guccifer-2
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...p-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/

Are you incapable of supporting arguments? Which is kinda sort of required.

First link:

• Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

Between October 2015 and May 2016, CTU researchers analyzed 8,909Bitly links that targeted 3,907 individual Gmail accounts and corporate and organizational email accounts that use Gmail as a service. In March 2016, CTU researchers identified a spearphishing campaign using Bitly accounts to shorten malicious URLs. The targets were similar to a 2015 TG-4127 campaign — individuals in Russia and the former Soviet states, current and former military and government personnel in the U.S. and Europe, individuals working in the defense and government supply chain, and authors and journalists — but also included email accounts linked to the November 2016 United States presidential election. Specific targets include staff working for or associated with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including individuals managing Clinton's communications, travel, campaign finances, and advising her on policy.

...

While TG-4127 continues to primarily threaten organizations and individuals operating in Russia and former Soviet states, this campaign illustrates its willingness to expand its scope to other targets that have intelligence of interest to the Russian government.

The link here between the hacking attempt and the Russian intelligence apparatus is, as said above, highly circumstantial.

Second link references first link, and again, seems to come to the conclusion that the Russian government is involved based on the same circumstantial evidence.

Third link is total click bait, and refrences the two links above. They also clearly point out:

Analysts suspect but don’t have hard evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is, in fact, part of one of the Russian groups who hacked the DNC.

Next link references other links, and has no real substance:

The malware involved was advanced, and at times identical to malware the Russian hacking groups have used in the past, Fidelis said in a http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html on Monday.

“This wasn’t ‘Script Kiddie’ stuff,” the company added

I highly doubt any hacking group is doing "script kiddie" stuff.

Other links are more of the same, and the last link seems to refute some of the other stuff in earlier links.

I remain unconvinced that it was a state sponsored hack.

 

[SixNein]

I remain unconvinced that it was a state sponsored hack.

I don't know much more that I could do for you. CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all came out publically citing russia. In addition our own intelligence organizations have fingered russia.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

In any regard, we disagree fundamentally on the importance of this issue. So it is a moot point.

 

[Student100]

I don't know much more that I could do for you. CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all came out publically citing russia. In addition our own intelligence organizations have fingered russia.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

In any regard, we disagree fundamentally on the importance of this issue. So it is a moot point.

The DHS statement doesn't really provide any supporting evidence, they may well have it, but they aren't sharing.

I just find it unlikely that a state sponsored attack would release information, when it's likely far more useful as blackmail material.

I see the blame game as a diversionary tactic. In the debates, Clinton pivots away from the substance of the released emails to "Russia did it!" Well, you and your campaign should not have saying/doing the things you were doing to begin with!

It's like Astronuc's link:

Two Democratic operatives lose jobs after James O'Keefe sting
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Two-Democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-James-9983970.php

I agree with Gingrich that the FBI needs to be investigating this matter.

"We were infiltrated by political spies and goaded into saying really awful things"

They shouldn't have been saying what they said regardless, goaded or not, spied on or not.

 

[DiracPool]

Pure hyperbole. Playing an armchair psychiatrist is silly.

Well, you playing an armchair-psychiatrist denier is even sillier . Do you even know what you're talking about? To say my comments are pure hyperbole is a pretty strong statement without any evidence to back up your argument.

Not explicitly stated, my point in post #1402 was that there's a dividing line where ordinary party-divide rhetoric ends and where mental illness begins. That was my point. You can say what you want about Hillary Clinton, maybe she is a liar, maybe she is crooked, a cheat, irresponsible, whatever. But that's just your opinion. What I'm talking about is a clinically diagnosable mental disorder. Granted, I'm not a board certified psychiatrist or clinical psychologist but I am a cognitive neuroscientist and part of being one is doing extensive study in cognitive psychology and abnormal psychology. And Trump fits the textbook definition of someone who suffers from a paranoid personality disorder:

From:http://www.theravive.com/therapedia/Paranoid-Personality-Disorder-DSM--5-301.0-(F60.0)

Symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder
According to the DSM-5, there are two primary diagnostic criterion for Paranoid Personality Disorder of which criterion A has seven sub features, four of which must be present to warrant a diagnosis of PPD:

1.The person with PPD will believe others are using, lying to, or harming them, without apparent evidence thereof.

4.They will interpret ambiguous or benign remarks as hurtful or threatening, and

5. Hold grudges

6. In the absence of objective evidence, b/elieve their reputation or character are being assailed by others, and will retaliate in some manner

So, there's your four criteria right there.

One, the president isn't all that powerful with nuclear weapons or in general. They're much more just a figurehead for the state. Back to nuclear weapons, there is no "nuclear button."

That is nonsense. The president has ultimate authority to launch a nuclear strike. That's the whole point of the nuclear football. Under an attack, the president has as little as 4 minutes to make a decision to launch a nuclear strike. Do you really think that there's time in there to discuss the issue with the secretary of defense and the chiefs of staff?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...d-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/

"In short: A president could push the button all by himself or herself, legally- and constitutionally-speaking. Physically, military personnel would need to carry out the strike of course. They could choose not to, perhaps at the instruction of the secretary of defense or the four-star officer leading Strategic Command—who together constitute the chain of command between the president and the trigger-pullers. But any military officer ignoring a presidential order would be in open insubordination, subject to dismissal and court martial."

Please don't be so cavalier in your assertions and back up your arguments with factual data..

 

[Orodruin]

Why do we care about Trump's rhetoric?

So after last night's comments by Trump regarding accepting the result of the election. You are seriously not concerned that you have a presidential candidate indicating and entertaining the possibility that the election is being unfair and that he will not accept the outcome? The peaceful transfer of power and acceptance of a democratic vote is a fundamental part of a democracy (as exercised by Cameron after the Brexit vote - he did lots of things wrong regarding it but he got that one right).

Failiure to accept the result (after entertaining any reasonable investigations in the case of a closed race) directly undermines the people's trust in democracy and by extension in democracy itself. The candidates themselves have an enormous responsibility here as they provide an example for their followers. For all these reasons, I do not find "I will keep you in suspense" an acceptable response to the question "will you accept the results of the election?"

 

[Student100]

That is nonsense. The president has ultimate authority to launch a nuclear strike. That's the whole point of the nuclear football. Under an attack, the president has as little as 4 minutes to make a decision to launch a nuclear strike. Do you really think that there's time in there to discuss the issue with the secretary of defense and the chiefs of staff?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...d-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/

"In short: A president could push the button all by himself or herself, legally- and constitutionally-speaking. Physically, military personnel would need to carry out the strike of course. They could choose not to, perhaps at the instruction of the secretary of defense or the four-star officer leading Strategic Command—who together constitute the chain of command between the president and the trigger-pullers. But any military officer ignoring a presidential order would be in open insubordination, subject to dismissal and court martial."

Please don't be so cavalier in your assertions and back up your arguments with factual data..

Your link says exactly what I said.

Do you really think that there's time in there to discuss the issue with the secretary of defense and the chiefs of staff?

Physically, military personnel would need to carry out the strike of course. They could choose not to, perhaps at the instruction of the secretary of defense or the four-star officer leading Strategic Command—who together constitute the chain of command between the president and the trigger-pullers

I'm sure if the president lost all grip on reality and opted for a first strike completely unilaterally when un-threatened, that it wouldn't happen, and that president would rendered unfit to lead. Which seems to be what you're worried about.

 

[DiracPool]

I'm sure if the president lost all grip on reality and opted for a first strike completely unilaterally when un-threatened, that it wouldn't happen, and that president would rendered unfit to lead.

That's a fanciful notion at best and wishful thinking. And to be so "sure" about it is alarming..

 

[Student100]

That's a fanciful notion at best and wishful thinking. And to be so "sure" about it is alarming..

It really isnt, when you consider the fanciful nature of the topic to begin with and the many places were the strike authorization could break down - assuming such a thing ever actually happened.

 

[DiracPool]

It really isnt, when you consider the fanciful nature of the topic to begin with and the many places were the strike authorization could break down - assuming such a thing ever actually happened.

Well, that's the problem, you're talking about a hypothetical scenario where the chain of command is broken. Hypothetical. You can always come up with a hypothetical scenario to support your argument. But as I stated in post #1424, this would amount to an insubordination on the part of what we would hope to consider loyal American military personal. So my argument is based upon the law as is stands now, not on some Hollywood hypothetical where the subordinates have the prescience to counter the commander in chiefs orders.

 

[SixNein]

The DHS statement doesn't really provide any supporting evidence, they may well have it, but they aren't sharing.

I just find it unlikely that a state sponsored attack would release information, when it's likely far more useful as blackmail material.

I see the blame game as a diversionary tactic. In the debates, Clinton pivots away from the substance of the released emails to "Russia did it!" Well, you and your campaign should not have saying/doing the things you were doing to begin with!

It's like Astronuc's link:"We were infiltrated by political spies and goaded into saying really awful things"

They shouldn't have been saying what they said regardless, goaded or not, spied on or not.

Russia has been expanding upon what it considers to be a military targets under a new doctrine that they call the "New Generation Warfare." Just google that term and you'll find plenty of security firms of all kinds talking about it.

They don't have to say anything special at all to be entirely bogged down politically especially in our political climate. For example, before the Copenhagen convention a very similar attack happened that became to be known as climate gate. Although scientists were cleared of wrong doing, it certainly damaged the political process. A lot of people were bogged down for a long time with it.

 

[Student100]

Well, that's the problem, you're talking about a hypothetical scenario where the chain of command is broken. Hypothetical. You can always come up with a hypothetical scenario to support your argument. But as I stated in post #1424, this would amount to an insubordination on the part of what we would hope to consider loyal American military personal. So my argument is based upon the law as is stands now, not on some Hollywood hypothetical where the subordinates have the prescience to counter the commander in chiefs orders.

You realize that isn't insubordination to not follow a non-lawful order under the UMCJ right? The president unilaterally deciding to use nuclear weapons when no clear threat to national security exists is clearly what I would, and other people who served with me would unanimously, consider a non-lawful order.

I think the real Hollywood trope is the belief that the military is a bunch of mindless drones, unequivocally following all orders.

 

[DiracPool]

You realize that isn't insubordination to not follow a non-lawful order under the UMCJ right? The president unilaterally deciding to use nuclear weapons when no clear threat to national security exists is clearly what I would, and other people who served with me would unanimously, consider a non-lawful order.

Who has the authority to make that determination? Who had the authority to make the determination that there were WMD's in Iraq in 2003? And who challenged that and how did that work out? The bottom line is that if the president presses the button the nukes will fly, plain and simple.

 

[Student100]

Who has the authority to make that determination? Who had the authority to make the determination that there were WMD's in Iraq in 2003? And who challenged that and how did that work out? The bottom line is that if the president presses the button the nukes will fly, plain and simple.

No it isn't, you have no supporting evidence that would happen. And again, he has no button, just half a code.

You're taking the most unlikely scenario, in an already unlikely event, and trying to sell it as the only one.

 

[Orodruin]

You're taking the most unlikely scenario, in an already unlikely event, and trying to sell it as the only one.

This is not really a good line of argumentation. Just because a scenario is unlikely does not mean it should not be considered. If the implications of that scenario occurring are catastrophic, it certainly needs to be considered in proportion to its probability and its impact. I do not find that he is selling it as the only possible scenario as much as a possible scenario (with potentially catastrophic repercussions). The difference here lies either in how you both estimate the probability or what amount of risk you are willing to accept.

 

[mheslep]

...am a cognitive neuroscientist and part of being one is doing extensive study in cognitive psychology and abnormal psychology.

Then why are you unaware of the basic APA code of professional behaviour?
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/08/the-goldwater-rule

American Psychiatric Association
...The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible
...
“the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated

 

[russ_watters]

[note: I may owe you a response from a previous post and I'll try to get back to it, but it has been a busy couple of days...]

So after last night's comments by Trump regarding accepting the result of the election. You are seriously not concerned that you have a presidential candidate indicating and entertaining the possibility that the election is being unfair and that he will not accept the outcome? The peaceful transfer of power and acceptance of a democratic vote is a fundamental part of a democracy (as exercised by Cameron after the Brexit vote - he did lots of things wrong regarding it but he got that one right).

Failiure to accept the result (after entertaining any reasonable investigations in the case of a closed race) directly undermines the people's trust in democracy and by extension in democracy itself.

No, as far as I can see, the situation hasn't changed: in order to be fearful of something, there hs to be something for me to fear. Trump hasn't provided any details of what it might mean to not accept the results and my imagination only goes so far as to speculate on the potential legal challenges he could make. CNN has some details:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/polit...ction-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

And similar to what you are saying, it ends with:

But if he or she means that they might not accept the final results as certified by each of the states, as voted upon by the Electoral College, and as confirmed by Congress, that would be unprecedented in American history.

So, what does that mean? Just being unprecedented is not something to fear. A potato shaped like Jay Leno's chin is unprecedented too, but just being "unprecedented" doesn't give it any value.

So again: what do you think Trump could ACTUALLY DO that could be an ACTUAL PROBLEM?

Here's what I think he could actually do: On election night, there is a real possibility that he'll get up and make a midnight speech saying, "I don't accept the results - it's rigged!" and then follow-that by not calling Hillary to concede.

And then...? [*crickets*] Nothing. Him saying he doesn't accept the results is not going to change them any more than a baseball player saying he doesn't accept he was called out a home plate is going to change that. He can't do anything of substance that could create an *actual problem*. Trump's failure to make a phone call is not going to bring down the US democracy.

Again, if you disagree, please tell me what, specifically you fear he might do.

[edit] My read on the entire election is that Trump is a [particularly unfunny] joke and that's it. Pundits and people who are politically passionate are taking him more seriously than is warranted because that's what such people do, despite the fact that a Presidential candidate has no *actual* power of any kind. With one exception: Trump did win a Presidential nomination, which makes him the de facto leader of the Republican party at least for another three weeks. He has likely done *actual* damage to the Republican party, the fall-out of which remains to be seen.

For all these reasons, I do not find "I will keep you in suspense" an acceptable response to the question "will you accept the results of the election?"

Nor do I, but in a "hey, look at the [pathetic] funny clown" sort of way, not in an "OH MY GOD, DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED!" sort of way.

 

[mheslep]

... then follow-that by not calling Hillary to concede.

US has been there, done that. Gore 2000 went a step further, called refusing to concede, after previously conceding. Insert list of hyperbole here: Crazy. Dangerous. Scary. Unprecedented. History something. Couple d'etat. My personal favorite: you "must" vote for the party I designate as sane.

"What Gore said to Bush"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1015429.stm

 

[russ_watters]

US has been there, done that. Gore 2000 went a step further, called refusing to concede, after previously conceding.

I had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details. And more importantly, Gore's calling to concede, then calling to cancel his concession illustrates just how meaningless the concession or lack thereof actually is. Just like with speculation on Trump, if Gore had stopped after election night and never called Bush to concede (did he ever?), what would have happened? Nothing.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder if he could do as well in other states

Only on the ballot in a ~dozen states, so no. A real independent on 50 state ballots, then I think they have something to say. This guy, still in the race Oct 20, can only push votes away from Trump or Clinton. Ego trip.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I'm glad you're all having fun arguing over the subtleties of which flawed candidate is worse than the other. The loser in this election is the American people.

 

[Orodruin]

Only on the ballot in a ~dozen states, so no. A real independent on 50 state ballots, then I think they have something to say. This guy, still in the race Oct 20, can only push votes away from Trump or Clinton. Ego trip.

Not necesarily true. If he manages to win Utah and this results in an electoral college deadlock, he technically could become president.

 

[Orodruin]

I had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details

The problem here being that Trump does not want to specify those details. In a close race (such as Bush-Gore), I would fully expect both candidates to examine every possible way to ensure that the election was not stolen. This is something I would expect of both Trump and Clinton.

In the case of Trump, he is being intentionally vague with what he means. I am not worried about what Trump will to do. To a large extent he acts like a 70-year-old spoiled child whi cries foul as soon as he doesn't get what he wants.

What worries me is that he is directly playing at subverting people's belief in the democratic system - and that might be particularly effective among those of his followers that are already doubting. Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

 

[Bystander]

Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

 

[gleem]

had forgotten that Gore did that. In that case, the breathless media claims of "unprecedented"[!] aren't even necessarily true without details. And more importantly, Gore's calling to concede, then calling to cancel his concession illustrates just how meaningless the concession or lack thereof actually is. Just like with speculation on Trump, if Gore had stopped after election night and never called Bush to concede (did he ever?), what would have happened? Nothing.

But Trump's unwillingness to concede is far different than Gore's Remember the vote in Florida started out early to indicate that Bush was winning (So Gore decided to concede - but not publicly at that point) but later became too close to call causing Gore to renege on his concession. He did concede publicly after "chad gate" . and legal sparing with Bush.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-way-trump-is-undermining-the-process-now/

 

[mheslep]

Not necesarily true. If he manages to win Utah and this results in an electoral college deadlock, he technically could become president.

Good point.

...then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose ...

 

[jim hardy]

Al Gore's behavior in 2000 set the standard for 'pathetic' . Supreme court wisely refused to overturn Florida's voting election process.
As a Florida resident then i bore considerable derision from my more liberal West Coast relatives . And Garrison Keillor's hilarious Guy Noir sketches .

Electoral College exists for good reason. "National Popular Vote" movement is a weaselly attempt to nullify it , end-running the Constitution.
It'll be interesting to watch how states with "winner takes all" rules affect electors .

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

Perhaps, though it's hard to take seriously any such concern if Trump's cagey debate remarks are cited as the cause, given what else has been going on that could be cited: US attorney general meeting on the tarmac with ex-president husband of candidate under FBI probe; gross collusion of press-media with DNC-Clinton when the press is given special constitutional role in this democracy; videos of known DNC operatives claiming to run a nation wide campaign to incite violence at political rallies; voter registration rolls with millions of dead people and other inelligible names that the government stubbornly refuses to expunge; President Obama who repeatedly claims that in disagreements with Congressionall action -inaction he can effectively make his own law, despite dozens of unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem here being that Trump does not want to specify those details.

Thus inviting people to use their imaginations to generate details to fear. It is my perception that there are two classes of people here:
1. Those who actually believe Trump is a budding 1940s style fascist dictator.
2. Those who believe the comparison is silly (and, when stoked by the media, extremely irresponsible).

Details are being generated based on those mindsets.

In the case of Trump, he is being intentionally vague with what he means. I am not worried about what Trump will to do.

The more we continue the discussion, the vaguer and vaguer this "fear" gets to me. I originally thought you were referring to something tangable that Trump would do. An event that would actually happen like a lawsuit or an armed takeover of a polling/counting place, done or stoked intentionally by Trump. The lawsuit I still think is plausible, by the way.

What worries me is that he is directly playing at subverting people's belief in the democratic system - and that might be particularly effective among those of his followers that are already doubting. Without faith in the democratic system, democracy dies.

How?

Whatever your answer, here's another angle to consider: when the election is over, Trump doesn't concede - ever - and *nothing* happens, shouldn't that improve peoples' faith in the strength of our system?

 

[russ_watters]

But Trump's unwillingness to concede is far different than Gore's...

How so?
[edit] Though you didn't really say, the article kinda did. There's two main differences cited:
1. Gore's loss was not clear on election night.
2. Gore eventually conceded.

But:
1. It was clear enough for the media to call the election for Bush and for Gore to concede, at least for a while. Then it became unclear enough for both of them to redo. Point being: who gets to decide if the election results are clear? Apparently, Gore thought it was the media's job to award election victories (even though I remember watching that night and I could tell their awarding the election to Bush was nonsense). But as much as the media would like you to believe it, it isn't. What matters in the choice to concede or not is the candidates' belief in whether he won/lost. the media may not agree with Trump (much to their dismay about their own power), but it isn't the media's call, it is Trump's.

2. a> So they are assuming Trump never will. b>So what? If Gore hadn't, what then?

And again, just like the "unprecedented" thing, you can argue as much as you want that red is a lot different from blue, so our different opinions on favorite color are "far different", but it ultimately is not going to matter to the American Democracy which color you or I prefer.

 

[BillTre]

I agree with last posts by Vanadium50 and Bystander. Just like we were surprised by Clinton's defeat in the Michigan primary, we could be in for another surprise on November 8.

Several of the posters here seem to be holding to a poorly based hope that the poles are wrong about Trump losing.
The Romney campaign had similar views before the last election and were (surprisingly) surprised (shocked even if you think of Rove) at the results. They were in an isolated bubble of fact denial which typical of recent Republican operatives. How they think they can run a successful, without decent poling data, in a close election, I don't understand. Sounds incompetent to me.

As a public service to those not up on modern political poling and to decrease their post-election surprise/depression, here is a link to a post on from 538 which discusses yesterday's debate. About 1/2 of the article discusses the issues of poling errors, their possible sources, and how the US election differs from the Brexit vote.
Bottom line: although anything is always possible at some low probability level, there are NO precedents for the size of errors or changes in popularity that would be required for Trump to win. He might win, but he is so far behind, there are no precedents for such large changes/errors.

You might think this (538) is just some left wing group that can't be trusted, but:
1) there are 5 or 6 other groups that do meta analysis on the many polls out there which have come to largely the same conclusion
2) betting markets also are producing very similar results
3) 538 has a great record of accurate predictions. In the last two presidential elections, there state by state predictions of who would win (in order to get at the electoral votes) were correct 99 out of 100 times (50 states x 2 elections).
Better than some gut feeling I would claim.