News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[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.