2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:56 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Regarding recounts, I always wondered, are they done more stringently than regular counting? If not surely if a recount resulted in a different winner it'd still only be 1-1, and thus a second recount would be required to break the tie no? And if it IS done more stringently, is there a reason we don't just count that way to begin with? Is it a matter of them being MUCH more costly than regular vote counting?
It may be as much about the desire to be seen as a fair and open process so that people will trust the results.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

One Texas elector is already quitting because he can't bring himself to vote for Trump (source). You'd never see enough R electors switch to Clinton, since they still want the Supreme Court pick(s). But, I wonder if there are enough R electors to team up with the 230+ D electors to vote for a different Republican, like Mitt Romney.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:29 pm UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

One Texas elector is already quitting because he can't bring himself to vote for Trump (source). You'd never see enough R electors switch to Clinton, since they still want the Supreme Court pick(s). But, I wonder if there are enough R electors to team up with the 230+ D electors to vote for a different Republican, like Mitt Romney.


I'm gonna go with no. Even if you could get every democrat to vote for a Republican, which seems unlikely, why should the Republicans go for it?

It's be strategic suicide for the Republican party.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Inb4 a general Texas Electors' Strike in solidarity with the one who quit. ;)

38 ECVs not cast would wipe out Trump's 270+ total (though still beat Clinton's figure). If reassigned to her, though, she actually gets exactly that magic 270.

Boy, would that upset the applecart. I don't think it's likely that 37 more Texan electors feel roughly the same, and in a state like Texas that would result in... fun. Go, Lone Star, go! :mrgreen:

commodorejohn
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

38 electoral votes would bring him under 270, though, which would mean kicking the decision over to the House. God only knows how that would play out.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6329
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

President Paul Ryan?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

cphite
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The peaceful transfer of power is predicated on trusting the outcome of the election. Evidently we have finally managed to fuck that up. Oh joy.

When the head of the NSA states that something was afoot, I think it's safe to assume something may be afoot.


The head of the NSA was talking about the hack of the Democratic National Committee server; the implication is that some nation state (presumably Russia) hacked the server and revealed damaging information about shenanigans within the DNC, and that this swayed public opinion against the party. Even assuming this is true, it has nothing to do with the actual counting of votes. It's also important to note that no actual hard evidence has ever been presented by anyone.

Supposedly there was some Russian language found in some of the code used in the hack... which frankly seems kind of sloppy considering this was a hack that was presumably so sophisticated that it had to have state support.

Though, Trump won Michigan by two tenths of a percentage (10k votes). So. I dunno.


Trump won. I'm not happy about it either, but it happened. And he won by enough of a margin that all of this recount stuff is frankly pointless. It's political posturing and fundraising.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:President Paul Ryan?

Seems possible, but I wonder how many House members would be willing to rile up their base by voting for a candidate that they didn't vote for...
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6329
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:14 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Thesh wrote:President Paul Ryan?

Seems possible, but I wonder how many House members would be willing to rile up their base by voting for a candidate that they didn't vote for...


That's not a problem. Leading up to the vote, right-wing media will start talking about Trump walking back on promises, and that Paul Ryan is the logical successor since he is Speaker of the House, and the country is unhappy with our choices, and that's why we have this system in place so we can make sure the people get who they really want.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

Reading up on the issue, it seems our Lone Ranger Elector has problems with the 12th Amendment, being something of a traditionalist. That's 212 years'-worth of new-fangledry that he doesn't believe the time has yet come for... :P

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:25 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Thesh wrote:President Paul Ryan?

Seems possible, but I wonder how many House members would be willing to rile up their base by voting for a candidate that they didn't vote for...

It would get messy, and none of the solutions would end well for the Democrats.

For what it's worth, 538 wants an audit, for selfish data mining reasons.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... e-outcome/

Izawwlgood
Let's be clear, this ain't no alt-right forum. There's no evidence of ANY voter fraud. It's been GOP bullshit for years, and it's still bullshit(even if it would help Democrats).

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:
Thesh wrote:President Paul Ryan?

Seems possible, but I wonder how many House members would be willing to rile up their base by voting for a candidate that they didn't vote for...

It would get messy, and none of the solutions would end well for the Democrats.

For what it's worth, 538 wants an audit, for selfish data mining reasons.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... e-outcome/

Izawwlgood
Let's be clear, this ain't no alt-right forum. There's no evidence of ANY voter fraud. It's been GOP bullshit for years, and it's still bullshit(even if it would help Democrats).


That isn't to say that mistakes can't be made. If margin of victory is only a few tenths of a percent, an automatic recount doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy. I've argued elsewhere on these forums that in the event of such margins, its probably most reasonable to consider votes with microscopic margins a tie, and use whatever mechanism is in place to break those.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:20 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:That isn't to say that mistakes can't be made. If margin of victory is only a few tenths of a percent, an automatic recount doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy. I've argued elsewhere on these forums that in the event of such margins, its probably most reasonable to consider votes with microscopic margins a tie, and use whatever mechanism is in place to break those.


Mathematically and/or practically, maybe, but it does run afoul of the "Voter Trust" issue, where Get Out The Vote campaigns frequently refer to such small margins of victory as evidence that "Every vote counts". To effectively throw out results, for any reason really, but automatically based on the margin of error would only fuel sentiments of voter disenfranchisement.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:28 am UTC

Dauric wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:That isn't to say that mistakes can't be made. If margin of victory is only a few tenths of a percent, an automatic recount doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy. I've argued elsewhere on these forums that in the event of such margins, its probably most reasonable to consider votes with microscopic margins a tie, and use whatever mechanism is in place to break those.


Mathematically and/or practically, maybe, but it does run afoul of the "Voter Trust" issue, where Get Out The Vote campaigns frequently refer to such small margins of victory as evidence that "Every vote counts". To effectively throw out results, for any reason really, but automatically based on the margin of error would only fuel sentiments of voter disenfranchisement.

Everyone here is misinformed as to what a recount actually does. They don't actually physically count votes. Instead, it's a forensic analysis of the election in question. It's similar to what the FBI does when a company may have been hacked.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:54 am UTC

HES wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered.

All America needs for unity is a common enemy to rally against?

That seems to be a true fact.
USAians don't seem to have much passion for making friends.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

And this morning on Twitter, the president-elect Finally Goes Too Far™ and calls for fascistic restrictions on expression:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

This is bait. He's pressing his outrage button and expects to be served up videos of idealistic liberal protesters burning the American flag. What you need to do if you want to fuck with Trump and his supporters is burn the Confederate flag.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

Sounds cheaper than how much they make you pay to actually give up your citizenship.

Maybe I should try it....
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

cphite
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:20 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Dauric wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:That isn't to say that mistakes can't be made. If margin of victory is only a few tenths of a percent, an automatic recount doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy. I've argued elsewhere on these forums that in the event of such margins, its probably most reasonable to consider votes with microscopic margins a tie, and use whatever mechanism is in place to break those.


Mathematically and/or practically, maybe, but it does run afoul of the "Voter Trust" issue, where Get Out The Vote campaigns frequently refer to such small margins of victory as evidence that "Every vote counts". To effectively throw out results, for any reason really, but automatically based on the margin of error would only fuel sentiments of voter disenfranchisement.


Everyone here is misinformed as to what a recount actually does. They don't actually physically count votes. Instead, it's a forensic analysis of the election in question. It's similar to what the FBI does when a company may have been hacked.


Umm, no... actually they do recount the votes. Paper ballots get fed back through the machines; if there is question about the reliability of the machines, they can do a hand recount, which usually consists of a few people manually tabulating the results and then comparing. For the electronic voting systems, they feed the printed results through a different machine, or they do a hand recount.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:
Thesh wrote:President Paul Ryan?

Seems possible, but I wonder how many House members would be willing to rile up their base by voting for a candidate that they didn't vote for...

It would get messy, and none of the solutions would end well for the Democrats.

For what it's worth, 538 wants an audit, for selfish data mining reasons.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... e-outcome/

Izawwlgood
Let's be clear, this ain't no alt-right forum. There's no evidence of ANY voter fraud. It's been GOP bullshit for years, and it's still bullshit(even if it would help Democrats).


The data does make me curious, but yeah, I agree, voter fraud has been overplayed. It doesn't seem likely that fraud is behind it, or that a recount will actually stop Trump. It's more just an unfortunate result of the distribution of votes. Clinton did receive plenty of votes, just not in the right places.

Democrats crying fraud at this point would likely only undermine work done to widen voting access. It'd be a long term error. Wouldn't save 'em now, but it'd get dredged up for forever. They probably have little to gain from a recount.

Lazar wrote:And this morning on Twitter, the president-elect Finally Goes Too Far™ and calls for fascistic restrictions on expression:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

This is bait. He's pressing his outrage button and expects to be served up videos of idealistic liberal protesters burning the American flag. What you need to do if you want to fuck with Trump and his supporters is burn the Confederate flag.


Oh yeah, that's obvious baiting.

That said, we do have the US flag code. It's not entirely without precedent. The idea's clearly come up in the past, the SC just smacked it down. Unlikely to actually get changed, I think. Way too accepted as a freedom as is.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:And this morning on Twitter, the president-elect Finally Goes Too Far™ and calls for fascistic restrictions on expression:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

So, he's not looking to renew his (foundation's) subscrption to the Boy Scouts Of America, those unpatriotic radicals...

(edited for apostrophe catastrophe, as seen below...)
Last edited by Soupspoon on Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:06 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Lazar wrote:And this morning on Twitter, the president-elect Finally Goes Too Far™ and calls for fascistic restrictions on expression:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

So, he's not looking to renew his (foundation's) subscrption to the Boy Scout's Of America, those unpatriotic radicals...

Maybe this is how Trump settles in policy positions. Remember how he kept pushing abortion until he went too far?(punish mother's). As soon as he saw the backlash from his base, he immediately backed off. This could be Trump's polling method.

cphite
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Lazar wrote:And this morning on Twitter, the president-elect Finally Goes Too Far™ and calls for fascistic restrictions on expression:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

So, he's not looking to renew his (foundation's) subscrption to the Boy Scout's Of America, those unpatriotic radicals...

Maybe this is how Trump settles in policy positions. Remember how he kept pushing abortion until he went too far?(punish mother's). As soon as he saw the backlash from his base, he immediately backed off. This could be Trump's polling method.


It's a common negotiation tactic:

1. Make an offer (or take a position) that is way beyond what you actually want.
2. Wait for the other side to counter the obvious overreach.
3. Walk it back to what you actually wanted in the first place.
4. Let the other side believe they just won something.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

Cphite, who is Trump negotiating with? nobody brought up flag burning until today. It's just a man yelling into his Twitter. Even his own staff is confused, and changed the topic when asked.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

His book's literally called "the art of the deal", yes? It makes sense that he tends to view things as negotiations/confrontations to win.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:His book's literally called "the art of the deal", yes?
A book written for him by a guy called Tony Schwartz1 was called that, yes... After being unable to do any normal ghostwriter/ghostwritee interviews, he had to resort to sitting on Trump's office phone extension and work out (to coin2 a phrase) "what the hell was going on" by then talking to the people Trump had talked to and getting their impressions of what had just happened.


1 Who was shouting about how Trump should not be elected, immediately before the election. Haven't heard what he's been doing since...

2 In the incorrect sense.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

Not endorsing it, merely saying that the idea that he's taking the same approach to this as he has to other things sorta fits.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:His book's literally called "the art of the deal", yes? It makes sense that he tends to view things as negotiations/confrontations to win.

Are you implying Trump knew what he was doing when he planned to punish abortion mothers?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Eh. Sort of?

In the sense that he probably did so intentionally, because he was fishing for what people wanted, yeah, probably. In the sense that it was a good idea, probably not.

The interesting "what if" here is what if his support hadn't said that was too far. What then?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Eh. Sort of?

In the sense that he probably did so intentionally, because he was fishing for what people wanted, yeah, probably. In the sense that it was a good idea, probably not.

The interesting "what if" here is what if his support hadn't said that was too far. What then?

Then he goes there. Trump feeds off his base's emotions. That's why he encouraged violence against others. Not because he planned it, but because the crowd wanted more, so he gave what he thought they wanted.

That's what's so dangerous about Trump. He doesn't know what he's doing. He gets that cheers are good, backlash from his peers are bad. Everything else is either a business deal, or props to be used. And I suppose, somewhere in there, he's gonna do something that helps the wealthy working class.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Then he goes there. Trump feeds off his base's emotions. That's why he encouraged violence against others. Not because he planned it, but because the crowd wanted more, so he gave what he thought they wanted.

That's what's so dangerous about Trump. He doesn't know what he's doing. He gets that cheers are good, backlash from his peers are bad. Everything else is either a business deal, or props to be used. And I suppose, somewhere in there, he's gonna do something that helps the wealthy working class.


I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He just doesn't see it as bad. Just, yknow, as winning.

But yeah, the conclusion that I come to is also, he goes as far as the mob enjoys. So, I suppose the question then becomes, how much do you trust the mob?

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

So, Petraeus is apparently being batted around as a candidate for State. For the record, he actually *is* guilty of criminal mishandling of classified information. I mean, don't get me wrong - he'd be a hugely better candidate than Guiliani. (And hopefully he's learned his lesson about what a bad idea it is to pass classified information to one's mistress). It's just kind of funny. No matter what Trump might like to claim, what he pulled was *vastly* worse than Clinton's stupidity vis a vis security.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:what he {Petraeus] pulled was *vastly* worse than Clinton's stupidity vis a vis security

Vastly worse?

Giving classified info to a single person you have a personal relationship with is vastly worse than the Secretary of State conducting government business on an unsecured email server? I don't think so. We know what information Petraeus compromised, and to who. We have no idea what secrets Ms. Clinton may have compromised due to her negligence, and we have no idea the scale of the damage done, or who may or may not have accessed those secrets.

Not vastly worse at all.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

It was hardly 'unsecured'. It was just not secured to the level expected, but even then more secure than other actual government servers (and prior government figures' own servers) have been proven to be.

But the big damage that has been done (to the privacy of information and to Hillary's reputation) is when either blackhats or judicial forces have accessed mails not upon Hillary's infamous server, but in other people's email stores, with possibly (C)onfidential (but mostly just embarassingly behind-the-scenes-revealing) emails being sent out into systems and devices that are beyond the control of either Hillary-style or 'proper-style' secure email servers. The problem is a PEBCAK one, mostly.

And the revealing of information to a companion d'amour in a location not protected by a Cone Of Silence is at least as susceptible to untracable eavesdropping.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:31 pm UTC

Yes, vastly worse. Clinton was stupid and careless. Petraeus deliberately and consciously leaked classified information. Those are worlds apart in the security world. There's a reason that Clinton wasn't prosecuted and Petraeus had to plea bargain down from a felony charge. And it's not that Comey was any sort of liberal hack.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:36 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Vastly worse?

Giving classified info to a single person you have a personal relationship with is vastly worse than the Secretary of State conducting government business on an unsecured email server? I don't think so. We know what information Petraeus compromised, and to who. We have no idea what secrets Ms. Clinton may have compromised due to her negligence, and we have no idea the scale of the damage done, or who may or may not have accessed those secrets.

Not vastly worse at all.
Clinton put information in an insecure place; Patraeus literally just handed it over to a civilian.

Which is worse: The banker who buys a faulty safe, or the banker who gives all the money to their best friend to keep over-night?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:what he {Petraeus] pulled was *vastly* worse than Clinton's stupidity vis a vis security

Vastly worse?

Giving classified info to a single person you have a personal relationship with is vastly worse than the Secretary of State conducting government business on an unsecured email server? I don't think so. We know what information Petraeus compromised, and to who. We have no idea what secrets Ms. Clinton may have compromised due to her negligence, and we have no idea the scale of the damage done, or who may or may not have accessed those secrets.

Not vastly worse at all.


Wat?

Official Government business is conducted all the time on unsecured servers. For details, here's the NSA's official Tumblr page.

https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/5 ... the-record

We know exactly what secrets Ms. Clinton compromised because the FBI took the vast majority of her emails, and then read through all of them, and then confirmed that she didn't do anything worth prosecuting.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:46 pm UTC

God, not this again.

Of course something that is explicitly for communicating to the public will be...public. Clinton's private email server isn't really the same thing. Arguing over which is worse is mostly pointless, though. What's the end goal, demonstrate that Trump is merely using partisanship instead of rigid adherence to morals?

Cool, everyone's already there.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:God, not this again.

Of course something that is explicitly for communicating to the public will be...public. Clinton's private email server isn't really the same thing. Arguing over which is worse is mostly pointless, though. What's the end goal, demonstrate that Trump is merely using partisanship instead of rigid adherence to morals?

Cool, everyone's already there.

The only thing worth revisiting is anyone who's gonna change their vote come 2018/2020 because of Trump's actions...I'm not seeing any movement yet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

Well, the guy hasn't taken office yet. All we have so far is promises, talk, and possibilities. Much like the campaign itself. So, if they bit for the campaign, there probably isn't much to discourage them yet.

Wouldn't hold out much hope for 2018, though. Math is brutal, even if Trump isn't beloved by all. 2020's the big crunch point. Democrats have a big window there, if they prep for it correctly. Right now, the plan mostly seems to be "assume Trump'll screw up, and they'll all come running back".

Trump's goin' with the mob on stuff, though. And people are often very slow to call into question their own decisions. Even if they don't work out, folks are much more generous with finding excuses, so there's a lot of power in this approach, I think. I mean, political power, not necessarily actually fixing stuff. Bluster against flag burning and stuff is unlikely to cost him anything, and it keeps his image fresh as someone doing the right thing, to his supporters.

Wonder what happens if Democrats copy his style. That could be...interesting.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Not vastly worse at all.
Well there is certainly a difference. Neither was real bright. But he was the head of the CIA and he knew that materials were classified. He was cheating on his wife and he gave them to his lover. He evidently thinks with his gonads, like Trump. The crime may preclude him from having a security clearance, but then again Trump can always pardon him. There are worse choices.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests