2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:34 am UTC

As I understand it, people are amplifying the phrase "hacked the election" to seem to mean something that didn't really happen. As I understand it, "someone" (probably the Russians) hacked into the servers of a private corporation (the DNC, and perhaps the RNC also) whose business it is to influence voters' opinions. They then released a select subset of this information, which influenced voters' opinions. But the voters were free to form their own opinions, and nothing (I've read about) indicates that the voters' opinions were subverted once they were formed. That is, the election wasn't hacked. Rather, voters succumbed to a sophisticated form of (Russian?) propaganda, and shot their own foot.

Hacking the DNC was certainly a crime. Releasing confidential information is certainly a crime. But it is not the crime of hacking an election.

American voters have a lot to answer for here too. They (we) need to become much more sophisticated in their evaluation of news, discriminating between news and fake news, and compensating for (obvious upon reflection) bias in reporting, especially when the bias comes from only one side's dirty laundry being aired.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:22 am UTC

My understanding is that Wikileaks is claiming that their info from the DNC is not a hack, but an actual leak from an insider. I might be wrong, though.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:24 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:My understanding is that Wikileaks is claiming that their info from the DNC is not a hack, but an actual leak from an insider. I might be wrong, though.

I think they've been cagey about where they got it, specifically denying Russia gave it to them.
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:31 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:My understanding is that Wikileaks is claiming that their info from the DNC is not a hack, but an actual leak from an insider. I might be wrong, though.

I think they've been cagey about where they got it, specifically denying Russia gave it to them.

They have been cagey in not naming Seth Rich directly as the source, even though they posted a cash reward for information about his murder.

They have been quite explicit that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked.

I have not heard anything about how the Podesta emails were obtained.
wee free kings

morriswalters
Posts: 6540
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:18 am UTC

And why should anyone, believe anything, that Wikileaks says, given that they themselves were attempting to influence the outcome of the election?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:46 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Frankly, I would love to see some actual evidence of Russian hacking - something more than the White House assuring us that folks at the CIA are pretty sure it was the Russians. The FBI has already contradicted some of what they're claiming.

Granted, there are things the government cannot make public in terms of how they determine who did what... but the DNC servers are not protected government servers; they aren't classified and they aren't vital to national security. They're frankly not much different than hacking a corporation. Given the scope of the claims - that this hacking actually effected the outcome of an election - there is no good reason not to make the evidence public.


Didn't Clinton make a big to-do about how her email server definitely wasn't available to foreign powers or the like? This seems increasingly improbably correct.

That said, I think there's a leap to be made from "access to DNC" to "fixed the election". The former keeps getting portrayed as the latter, but I have yet to see that jump be properly supported. Folks reading your email, while important, I suppose, is very different from someone changing vote totals or the like.

cphite
Posts: 1084
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:If we're expected to believe that a foreign power actually influenced a national election, we need more than a "trust us" statement from the government.
What do you think could exist that would convince you?

However Obama has made his play straight out of the cold war cookbook. A public tit for tat. He sent a message to the Russians that says there is a price to be paid for being obvious and obnoxious. We send 35 of theirs to the Motherland and monkeyfuck with their property by closing two facilities. The Russians will retaliate, but the message has been sent. I think it is conceivable that the Space Station could be toast. It's a straight forward and obvious target.


Putin just announced this morning that they will not be expelling diplomats, and then invited them and their families to a Christmas event. He stated their intention to wait until Trump takes office before taking any action.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:45 pm UTC

Welp, Obama just made Putin look like the good guy tryin' for peace.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:12 pm UTC

Putin is good guy, not like capitalist pig. Trust in Great Comrade Putin to show way for shiny bright future. Bring true peace to Europe and Ukraine, only one kick Syrian Terrorist butt. Believe American lies not, they are jealous of Putin great shirtless.

Mutex
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

The only thing I'm wondering is if Putin's attempt to appear magnanimous is so blatant and transparent it isn't actually effective. Probably not though.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:26 pm UTC

It will have its audience. If he's lucky (or deft enough) that will be his required audience.

morriswalters
Posts: 6540
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:40 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Putin just announced this morning that they will not be expelling diplomats, and then invited them and their families to a Christmas event. He stated their intention to wait until Trump takes office before taking any action.
The only reason he gets to use that particular tactic is because Trump talks too much. I assume that Trump could have had the background on why the CIA feels as it does. He can have as many intelligence briefings as he needs. He hasn't done it until today, so he's been talking without input from the intelligence establishment. If anyone is in a position to know if the Russians attempted some type of manipulation, it would be them. Intelligence is an asset, and you should at least listen to them, agree or not.
Mutex wrote:The only thing I'm wondering is if Putin's attempt to appear magnanimous is so blatant and transparent it isn't actually effective. Probably not though.
Trump will answer your question. Putin's playing to Trump's ego. Nobody else matters.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:Frankly, I would love to see some actual evidence of Russian hacking - something more than the White House assuring us that folks at the CIA are pretty sure it was the Russians. The FBI has already contradicted some of what they're claiming.

Granted, there are things the government cannot make public in terms of how they determine who did what... but the DNC servers are not protected government servers; they aren't classified and they aren't vital to national security. They're frankly not much different than hacking a corporation. Given the scope of the claims - that this hacking actually effected the outcome of an election - there is no good reason not to make the evidence public.


Didn't Clinton make a big to-do about how her email server definitely wasn't available to foreign powers or the like? This seems increasingly improbably correct.

That said, I think there's a leap to be made from "access to DNC" to "fixed the election". The former keeps getting portrayed as the latter, but I have yet to see that jump be properly supported. Folks reading your email, while important, I suppose, is very different from someone changing vote totals or the like.

Are you trying to say it's not important, or just that people are mischaracterizing information warfare with completely rigged elections?

Both Trump and Putin are signaling that they want better relations. It's up to the Senate Republicans to oblige or not. Remember, there's a lot of money to be made on the side if they roll over on this. Besides, if Republicans fight Trump, the distraction may damage the midterm prospects. The only problem is that Republicans preTrump hated Russia. That's the only stumbling block here. Once the GOP politicians test the waters on the response, (I'm not sure how much McCain and Graham want to press the public on Russia).

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:03 pm UTC

ucim wrote:As I understand it, people are amplifying the phrase "hacked the election" to seem to mean something that didn't really happen. As I understand it, "someone" (probably the Russians) hacked into the servers of a private corporation (the DNC, and perhaps the RNC also) whose business it is to influence voters' opinions. They then released a select subset of this information, which influenced voters' opinions. But the voters were free to form their own opinions, and nothing (I've read about) indicates that the voters' opinions were subverted once they were formed. That is, the election wasn't hacked. Rather, voters succumbed to a sophisticated form of (Russian?) propaganda, and shot their own foot.

Hacking the DNC was certainly a crime. Releasing confidential information is certainly a crime. But it is not the crime of hacking an election.


I agree with your assessment.

However, that still says that Russians mettled with us Americans, so some form of retribution seems important. Its not like Obama is calling into question Trump's legitimacy here, he's just sanctioning the Russians in retribution for their actions.

morriswalters wrote:
Mutex wrote:The only thing I'm wondering is if Putin's attempt to appear magnanimous is so blatant and transparent it isn't actually effective. Probably not though.
Trump will answer your question. Putin's playing to Trump's ego. Nobody else matters.


I have a rather low opinion of Trump, but I don't think of him to be that much of a simpleton. Trump is allegedly meeting with intelligence and will see whatever proof they got for himself. So we'll just have to gauge Trump's reaction in the next few days or weeks.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
I have a rather low opinion of Trump, but I don't think of him to be that much of a simpleton. Trump is allegedly meeting with intelligence and will see whatever proof they got for himself. So we'll just have to gauge Trump's reaction in the next few days or weeks.

KE, that's not the complaint about Trump. Take a similar person, Julian Assange. He claimed that Russia didn't need to be raked over by wikileaks because Russia isn't as corrupt. Why? Well Assange is a guy without a lot of friends, and he either loves you or hates you. He hates Clinton, and Putin cut him a break, so he loves Putin. Trump wants to improve relations with Putin, so given that goal, all this intelligence about Russia hacking us isn't as important. it's similar to Obama pushing for Iranian deal but with more corruption. He knows relations are bad, but he wants them to improve.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Are you trying to say it's not important, or just that people are mischaracterizing information warfare with completely rigged elections?

Both Trump and Putin are signaling that they want better relations. It's up to the Senate Republicans to oblige or not. Remember, there's a lot of money to be made on the side if they roll over on this. Besides, if Republicans fight Trump, the distraction may damage the midterm prospects. The only problem is that Republicans preTrump hated Russia. That's the only stumbling block here. Once the GOP politicians test the waters on the response, (I'm not sure how much McCain and Graham want to press the public on Russia).


The latter. Email access and what not is still important, it's just a rather different thing. It calls into question the security of the DNC, sure, but it doesn't imply that the US voting apparatus is compromised.

Better relations is, at least in theory, good, I suppose. Keep in mind that among Republicans, Reagan is hailed as a hero for ending the berlin wall, and what not. They aren't fixated on hating Russia. They're fixated on winning any conflict with Russia. So, all Trump has to do is spin this as a win. That should not pose a significant problem.

As an aside, I wonder if Trump could reach Reaganesque levels of respect/idolatry/whatever? That's an interesting future to ponder.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
I have a rather low opinion of Trump, but I don't think of him to be that much of a simpleton. Trump is allegedly meeting with intelligence and will see whatever proof they got for himself. So we'll just have to gauge Trump's reaction in the next few days or weeks.

KE, that's not the complaint about Trump. Take a similar person, Julian Assange. He claimed that Russia didn't need to be raked over by wikileaks because Russia isn't as corrupt. Why? Well Assange is a guy without a lot of friends, and he either loves you or hates you. He hates Clinton, and Putin cut him a break, so he loves Putin. Trump wants to improve relations with Putin, so given that goal, all this intelligence about Russia hacking us isn't as important. it's similar to Obama pushing for Iranian deal but with more corruption. He knows relations are bad, but he wants them to improve.


Let me remind you of something that happened about 8 years ago, as Obama dropped Bush's plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

The worst that will happen is that Trump will learn the hard way (just like Obama did) that the Russians are not to be trusted. It took at least two years for Obama to learn his lesson (arguably six, as 2014's Crimea's annexation was the major event), how long do you think Trump will take?

Overly friendly relations with the Russians is a flaw that this country has already survived through. I do agree with you that there's a major chance that Trump will repeat these mistakes, but its relatively minor in the great scheme of things.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
I have a rather low opinion of Trump, but I don't think of him to be that much of a simpleton. Trump is allegedly meeting with intelligence and will see whatever proof they got for himself. So we'll just have to gauge Trump's reaction in the next few days or weeks.

KE, that's not the complaint about Trump. Take a similar person, Julian Assange. He claimed that Russia didn't need to be raked over by wikileaks because Russia isn't as corrupt. Why? Well Assange is a guy without a lot of friends, and he either loves you or hates you. He hates Clinton, and Putin cut him a break, so he loves Putin. Trump wants to improve relations with Putin, so given that goal, all this intelligence about Russia hacking us isn't as important. it's similar to Obama pushing for Iranian deal but with more corruption. He knows relations are bad, but he wants them to improve.


Let me remind you of something that happened about 8 years ago, as Obama dropped Bush's plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

The worst that will happen is that Trump will learn the hard way (just like Obama did) that the Russians are not to be trusted. It took at least two years for Obama to learn his lesson (arguably six, as 2014's Crimea's annexation was the major event), how long do you think Trump will take?

Overly friendly relations with the Russians is a flaw that this country has already survived through. I do agree with you that there's a major chance that Trump will repeat these mistakes, but its relatively minor in the great scheme of things.

We know that, but does Trump know that? In the great scheme of things, yea Russia's "rise" isn't that big of a deal. Just a million more deaths, at worst. But, the West, US included, is paying a price for Russia's antics in western Europe, and all those terrorism deaths are very much caused by Syria's disintegration that Russia encouraged. So yea, it's relatively small, but the world is so big that even small events hurt millions.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7219
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

But, the West, US included, is paying a price for Russia's antics in western Europe, and all those terrorism deaths are very much caused by Syria's disintegration that Russia encouraged.

Wait a minute. After years of supporting any rebel group willing to downplay their religion to fashionable levels, we're now opposed to Syrian disintegration? And we were always at war with Oceania and allied with Eastasia, right?

morriswalters
Posts: 6540
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I have a rather low opinion of Trump, but I don't think of him to be that much of a simpleton.
Then you have a higher opinion of him than I do. I'd like to know why he hasn't been taking intelligence briefings. There is a reason we keep the Russians at arms length. I'd like to believe that he has a grasp of the strategic situation.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:19 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
But, the West, US included, is paying a price for Russia's antics in western Europe, and all those terrorism deaths are very much caused by Syria's disintegration that Russia encouraged.

Wait a minute. After years of supporting any rebel group willing to downplay their religion to fashionable levels, we're now opposed to Syrian disintegration? And we were always at war with Oceania and allied with Eastasia, right?

I thought US "years of any rebels who downplayed religion" wasn't very influential since they never got anywhere?

So Assad was losing, and Russia propped them back up, stalling out the fight, hence encouraging Syria's disintegration instead of ending the conflict in a way that doesn't include Assad. Syria's disintegration comes from external powers fighting over and supporting different parts of Syria. That leaves a power vacuum for terrorism to spread to the West. That doesn't seem wrong that Russia's support of Assad when he was losing made terrorism worse in Europe.

And how important was US support for 'moderate' rebels? It seems the Saudis and Turks had more influence, and it was more about the lack of US support of said rebels, no?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:17 am UTC

Interesting interview on the subject reported in brief by ... Kim Sengupta. Website and paper versions don't always look the same. Took some finding.

British jihadis shunned frontline in favour of torture squads

The two young men with him, Muslims from Belgium, had volunteered interesting information including that the hierarchy of Isis was paranoid about infiltration by Western intelligence services. At the same time, both had been anxious to repeatedly stress that they had played no part in the acts of savagery for which Isis has become a byword.

I spoke to Abu Mutassim, away from his companions ... “If you listen to all these people who had left Daesh [Isis], you’d think all they were doing was cooking or driving. I had no idea we had so many cooks and drivers! I wonder why we didn’t open lots of restaurants and a taxi service,” Abu Mutassim laughed.

“I don’t blame anyone for saying things to stay alive, especially the ones who came from other countries. They want to go back there. May be some of them will do what the emirs [leaders of Isis] have told them to do and carry out attacks when they return: maybe they will just go back to their lives. But they don’t want to get arrested.”

In this appearance, on a sunny autumn day, Abu Mutassim, with his square, open face and alert eyes, did not seem that different from the man I had met in Aleppo four years ago; someone in our realm of normality, someone one could talk to. This was during a battle lasting the summer when the rebels seemed close to capturing Syria’s largest city and commercial centre, and then marching on Damascus.

How did the views he talked about, with some passion – at the start of the revolution – of a tolerant and democratic post-Assad Syria, change so much? I asked.

“One reason some of us joined was we were angry with Americans, with the British, the French. They wanted us to fight against Bashar [al-Assad], to bring him down, they promised us help. How many people died waiting for that help to arrive? What did America and Europe do when Assad dropped barrel bombs on hospitals, schools? So us joining Daesh was a form of revenge.”


Being in a position to arrange an interview with him must have taken years of building up a good reputation and a contacts network.
I don't know and have no opinion.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

Is the article claiming that former Isis members are lying about their crimes in the mid East?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... em/510761/
A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward white evangelicals

He's advocating what I think is a fool's errand but since democrats don't have much, I think it's worth discussing. What exactly is the angle to get evangelicals votes? Quietly fight abortion instead of loudly? Focus on charity and poverty? Do evangelicals even live in swing States? Cutting into their numbers might be useful.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Do evangelicals even live in swing States? Cutting into their numbers might be useful.

NC is 41% evangelical. That's a pretty major slice.
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7219
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:49 am UTC

I thought US "years of any rebels who downplayed religion" wasn't very influential since they never got anywhere?

So Assad was losing, and Russia propped them back up, stalling out the fight, hence encouraging Syria's disintegration instead of ending the conflict in a way that doesn't include Assad. Syria's disintegration comes from external powers fighting over and supporting different parts of Syria. That leaves a power vacuum for terrorism to spread to the West. That doesn't seem wrong that Russia's support of Assad when he was losing made terrorism worse in Europe.

And how important was US support for 'moderate' rebels? It seems the Saudis and Turks had more influence, and it was more about the lack of US support of said rebels, no?

I should have made a more considered reply than that snark, sorry. A more elaborate version of why your comment bothered me:

If you want it hard enough, you can set up a chain of causality from Russia's action in Syria, to terrorist deaths in Europe. It will be a long chain, with very tenuous and uncertain links in it. If that counts as responsibility, it's a very diffused kind of responsibility. You can set up shorter chains to many other people, who by that logic will have at least that same responsibility as Russia. And that includes our own governments, and the electorates that elected them. Quite possibly, you and me.
Even more details:
Spoiler:
AFAICT, the argument you propose is this. Correct me where I go wrong:
- Several terrorist attacks in Europe were supported, or at least inspired, by jihadist fighting groups in Syria.
- If the civil war in Syria was over, those groups would not be able to offer much support.
- If Assad loses the war, the civil war would be over
- Without Russian support, Assad would lose
Ergo, Russia is (partially) responsible for the deaths in Europe.

As I said, my objection is not that this is completely 100% wrong, but that it's extremely tenuous. It's holding the Russians responsible for the fanboys of some of their enemies.

In the mean time, we might not be directly supporting al-Nusra and the like, but it's close. They get their arms from countries that are allied to us, those countries get them from Bulgaria, and related rebel groups get their rocket launchers directly from the CIA.

So, either we've simply decided that Assad is worse for Syria than the jihadist parts of the rebellion. In which case it's odd to blame the Russians for our own uncomfortable bedfellows. Or we are planning to (pay to) fight the remaining jihadists if Assad were to lose, in which case the argument above falls down - there won't be peace be if the Russian retreat.

That doesn't mean western or American decisions are the sole determinant of what happens. Just that we're closer to those terrorist's attacks than the Russians.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:13 pm UTC

Texas was as close as Ohio in 2016.

Talking about the Cbriatian obligation to care for the poor and social security.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is the article claiming that former Isis members are lying about their crimes in the mid East?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... em/510761/
A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward white evangelicals

He's advocating what I think is a fool's errand but since democrats don't have much, I think it's worth discussing. What exactly is the angle to get evangelicals votes? Quietly fight abortion instead of loudly? Focus on charity and poverty?


Respecting religion would be a decent first step. An evangelical in my office was rather timid about talking about politics, because he knew that what he says is rather unpopular outside of the deep south. I'm Catholic (not "Evangelical"), but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.

Pulling out his opinions for discussion was an exercise in giving him a comfort zone. I hypothesized that he was Evangelical before he told me outright, so I offered a bible-quote in some unrelated subject. And over the weeks, I was able to make him open up and tell me his opinions on politics. But yeah, that's my experience with Evangelicals: they are a shy bunch and feel like their opinions aren't worthwhile to share.

There are a lot of people who disrespect religion for religion's sake. Literally down the hall from this Evangelical (4 doors down) was another office-mate who was complaining that Religion is the cause of literally every single war in the past 1000 years. When people's #1 issue is religion, then start with respecting their religion. Religious people are actually rather split on issues like gay marriage and abortion. The #1 issue above all is respect for their religion.

If you want to know why Trump won the Evangelical vote, its because he was brazen about accepting the Bible. Not because anybody actually expects Trump to be a fellow who is actually religious. But when Trump isn't afraid to get on the same stage as Phil Robertson... sure... not a lot of people agree with Phil Robertson... but it showed that Trump was unafraid of militant atheists and would fight on the side of Evangelicals.

Trump has been supportive of gay marriage and has blasted the North Carolina transgender bathroom laws. But that's a secondary issue to Evangelicals. The #1 issue is whether or not you respect them.

FYI: This voter skipped out on the election. He didn't like either candidate.

---------

The other Religious guy I know was less shy about it. But he's made it clear to me that while he was voting for Trump, that Trump doesn't reflect his opinions. Furthermore, despite Trump winning, Trump doesn't "represent the Republican party". This seems to be a general feeling among Trump supporters: none of them actually like Trump in my experience.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6540
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

The other religious guy is delusional. Trump represents the Republican party. Just as Clinton would have represented Democrats. You can't walk around that, it is what it is. I on the other hand respect the one who sat it out.

KnightExemplar wrote: but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.
Yeah, militant atheism has marched forward. However militant atheists couldn't get elected as dog catchers. The only people getting elected are Christians. I can list the their efforts to write their beliefs into law There may be exceptions here and there, but in the main color me not feeling badly for Christians.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby kingofdreams » Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:30 pm UTC

evangelicals aren't the only ones who get to evangelize but secularists rarely form cohesive voting blocks. christian persecution in the u.s. seems largely anecdotal
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:23 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The other religious guy is delusional. Trump represents the Republican party. Just as Clinton would have represented Democrats. You can't walk around that, it is what it is. I on the other hand respect the one who sat it out.

KnightExemplar wrote: but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.
Yeah, militant atheism has marched forward. However militant atheists couldn't get elected as dog catchers. The only people getting elected are Christians. I can list the their efforts to write their beliefs into law There may be exceptions here and there, but in the main color me not feeling badly for Christians.

It's not about feeling bad for them, or if evangelicals deserve it or not. It's about power, and whether or not it's worth getting their votes to get more power than before. I'm skeptical of evangelicals, but one possibility is to talk to them as a whole person, not as a evangelical single issue voter. It's probably wrong, but you could imagine a world where evangelicals vote Democrat based on the economy, social welfare, or even global warming.
Despite what Tyndmyr says, the party out of power in the White House will get the outsider voter bonus. So that will muddy the waters as to what actually worked, and what was just anti-establishment voting.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: everywhere, including space.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:56 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Is the article claiming that former Isis members are lying about their crimes in the mid East?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... em/510761/
A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward white evangelicals

He's advocating what I think is a fool's errand but since democrats don't have much, I think it's worth discussing. What exactly is the angle to get evangelicals votes? Quietly fight abortion instead of loudly? Focus on charity and poverty?


Respecting religion would be a decent first step. An evangelical in my office was rather timid about talking about politics, because he knew that what he says is rather unpopular outside of the deep south. I'm Catholic (not "Evangelical"), but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.

Pulling out his opinions for discussion was an exercise in giving him a comfort zone. I hypothesized that he was Evangelical before he told me outright, so I offered a bible-quote in some unrelated subject. And over the weeks, I was able to make him open up and tell me his opinions on politics. But yeah, that's my experience with Evangelicals: they are a shy bunch and feel like their opinions aren't worthwhile to share.

There are a lot of people who disrespect religion for religion's sake. Literally down the hall from this Evangelical (4 doors down) was another office-mate who was complaining that Religion is the cause of literally every single war in the past 1000 years. When people's #1 issue is religion, then start with respecting their religion. Religious people are actually rather split on issues like gay marriage and abortion. The #1 issue above all is respect for their religion.

If you want to know why Trump won the Evangelical vote, its because he was brazen about accepting the Bible. Not because anybody actually expects Trump to be a fellow who is actually religious. But when Trump isn't afraid to get on the same stage as Phil Robertson... sure... not a lot of people agree with Phil Robertson... but it showed that Trump was unafraid of militant atheists and would fight on the side of Evangelicals.

Trump has been supportive of gay marriage and has blasted the North Carolina transgender bathroom laws. But that's a secondary issue to Evangelicals. The #1 issue is whether or not you respect them.

FYI: This voter skipped out on the election. He didn't like either candidate.

---------

The other Religious guy I know was less shy about it. But he's made it clear to me that while he was voting for Trump, that Trump doesn't reflect his opinions. Furthermore, despite Trump winning, Trump doesn't "represent the Republican party". This seems to be a general feeling among Trump supporters: none of them actually like Trump in my experience.


Wonders which alternate universe you live in where Christians are persecuted in the US instead of largely writing policy with their religion.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
rawr!

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 7997
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:43 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Is the article claiming that former Isis members are lying about their crimes in the mid East?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... em/510761/
A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward white evangelicals

He's advocating what I think is a fool's errand but since democrats don't have much, I think it's worth discussing. What exactly is the angle to get evangelicals votes? Quietly fight abortion instead of loudly? Focus on charity and poverty?


Respecting religion would be a decent first step. An evangelical in my office was rather timid about talking about politics, because he knew that what he says is rather unpopular outside of the deep south. I'm Catholic (not "Evangelical"), but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.

Pulling out his opinions for discussion was an exercise in giving him a comfort zone. I hypothesized that he was Evangelical before he told me outright, so I offered a bible-quote in some unrelated subject. And over the weeks, I was able to make him open up and tell me his opinions on politics. But yeah, that's my experience with Evangelicals: they are a shy bunch and feel like their opinions aren't worthwhile to share.

There are a lot of people who disrespect religion for religion's sake. Literally down the hall from this Evangelical (4 doors down) was another office-mate who was complaining that Religion is the cause of literally every single war in the past 1000 years. When people's #1 issue is religion, then start with respecting their religion. Religious people are actually rather split on issues like gay marriage and abortion. The #1 issue above all is respect for their religion.

If you want to know why Trump won the Evangelical vote, its because he was brazen about accepting the Bible. Not because anybody actually expects Trump to be a fellow who is actually religious. But when Trump isn't afraid to get on the same stage as Phil Robertson... sure... not a lot of people agree with Phil Robertson... but it showed that Trump was unafraid of militant atheists and would fight on the side of Evangelicals.

Trump has been supportive of gay marriage and has blasted the North Carolina transgender bathroom laws. But that's a secondary issue to Evangelicals. The #1 issue is whether or not you respect them.

FYI: This voter skipped out on the election. He didn't like either candidate.

---------

The other Religious guy I know was less shy about it. But he's made it clear to me that while he was voting for Trump, that Trump doesn't reflect his opinions. Furthermore, despite Trump winning, Trump doesn't "represent the Republican party". This seems to be a general feeling among Trump supporters: none of them actually like Trump in my experience.


Wonders which alternate universe you live in where Christians are persecuted in the US instead of largely writing policy with their religion.

Christian values have held sway for so long, that any movement towards secularism (even if it's only cultural and not yet affecting policy) must be quite a scary thing for Christians.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:00 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote: but I really do feel like the pull of "militant atheism" has marched forward the past decade or so.
Yeah, militant atheism has marched forward. However militant atheists couldn't get elected as dog catchers. The only people getting elected are Christians. I can list the their efforts to write their beliefs into law There may be exceptions here and there, but in the main color me not feeling badly for Christians.


Church attendance is down and so are donations to churches. Any religious individual does not like the current situation. That's a fact.

You don't have to "feel badly" for the religious. I'm just explaining the viewpoint that I see. Someone else brought up the hypothetical that Democrats might want to try to cater to them in the next election. That's the basics of voting blocks and coaliltions.

Besides, evangelicals often agree on liberal issues. Blessed are the poor, Alms giving, etc. etc. There's a good chance to build a coalition there as long as you aren't outright insulting the #1 issue for them, which is their religion. I think Democrats are a bit too happy at pushing the secular viewpoint. Obama actually did a good job catering to the religious crowd and I think it helped him (I can think of a few times when Obama started something with a prayer or something or another).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... a766862648

Obama was ~26% of the White Evangelical vote, while Clinton was 19%. White Evangelicals were easily a quarter of the election, so that easily is millions of votes.

The Clinton campaign ran a campaign that employed religious references — primarily as a way to accentuate a critique of her opponent’s moral character — but it included little religious outreach from the candidate herself. Hillary never directly asked for the support of evangelicals. She never had an interview with a major evangelical publication or outlet. Her campaign decided, as Democrats have often desired to, that religious voters — with limited exceptions — did not need to be sought in order to win. This view largely applied to Catholics as well, 23 percent of the electorate, as we learned from recent reports about the campaign’s decision to avoid a St. Patrick’s Day event because “white Catholics were not the audience she [Clinton] needed to spend time reaching out to.”


If Democrats don't want to seek the religious, then they won't get them. But I don't see anything from the religious that strictly is "liberal" or "conservative" overall. They're just sorta their own group: generally against abortion and gay marriage, but agreeable to social programs and raising minimum wages (aka: the beatitudes).

So neither Republicans nor Democrats really represent the religious very well. But Republicans have been more accepting of them and also explicitly catering them in the previous elections.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:19 am UTC

Ke, those are all supposedly important parts of evangelicals, and they have a lot in common with Democrats goals. Depending on how bad the blood is, it might take several elections to figure out if it's bad blood, or evangelicals fundamentally can't align with the modern Democrats. Which makes the future coalition building very cloudy.

PS, do you have any politicians who walk that tightrope? I think we might find some examples in 2018.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:24 am UTC

sardia wrote:Ke, those are all supposedly important parts of evangelicals, and they have a lot in common with Democrats goals. Depending on how bad the blood is, it might take several elections to figure out if it's bad blood, or evangelicals fundamentally can't align with the modern Democrats. Which makes the future coalition building very cloudy.

PS, do you have any politicians who walk that tightrope? I think we might find some examples in 2018.


Obama had pretty low-support for Evangelicals in the great scheme of things. Remember, this was the President that (by 2012 anyway), a good chunk of the country believed him to the Muslim Antichrist. So yeah, I do realize that it seems like catering towards Evangelicals is hopeless.

But Clinton managed to do even worse. Evangelicals, in my experience, are flabbergasted at Trump's behavior and the allegations against him. But the fact of the matter is: Clinton had absolutely ZERO outreach to this group of voters, and the Democrat's pull of this group went from 26% under Obama to 19% under Clinton's campaign.

There's no "tightrope walking" here. If Clinton pulled as many Evangelicals as Obama's awful performance... she would be the President instead of Trump. This was a very close election, a gain from any direction could have helped. It wouldn't have been much for Clinton to have made one or two speeches to demonstrate that she was willing to work with the Religious on certain issues. Again: Obama has been 100% for Gay Marriage and anti-abortion. Evangelicals know that no politician will match their values perfectly... but Clinton failed at even showing up to any major Evangelical location.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6540
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:55 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Respecting religion would be a decent first step.
I like coalition building as much as the next guy. But not if this is the first step. It frames the question in a negative way. First, since the Democratic party isn't an Atheist front, one would have to assume there is something other than a lack of respect involved. Are most Democrats not Christians? This, IMO, comes down to acquiescing on abortion, Which I will buy into, only if Democratic women buy into it. Pence's selection as running mate is indicative of the future, despite Trump's hints otherwise. That's what drew my objection. To get Obama level support from Evangelicals all the party would seem to need to do is to put forth a clean candidate with no history. Like Obama.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5157
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:25 am UTC

It seems to me that the alignment between politics and (US) religion is one of judgmentalism. Christians, especially evangelicals, tend to be judgmental rather than tolerant and accepting. The whole concept of sin is a judgmentalist thing, and while it's God that's supposed to be doing the judging, believers love to second-guess him. (Public) positions on abortion seem to follow this. Republicans (including Trump) are also very judgmental in their policy choices, whereas Democrats tend to be more inclusive and tolerant. So, I'd say that religion isn't really the fundamental alignment factor, but rather, the idea of judging others inferior and unworthy.

Taking it further, Democrats want us to pay for their tolerance and accommodation, because accommodation leads to programs that cost money. In doing so, they tend to be more patronizing. Yes, this is a form of judgment too (we all have to make decisions), but it's not one of good vs evil, but rather, able vs needy. And though this is also reflected in religion (alms giving and the like), I don't think religion isn't a fundamental alignment factor here either.

It's just that religion happens to fall along the same "lines of force".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:51 am UTC

ucim wrote:It seems to me that the alignment between politics and (US) religion is one of judgmentalism. Christians, especially evangelicals, tend to be judgmental rather than tolerant and accepting. The whole concept of sin is a judgmentalist thing, and while it's God that's supposed to be doing the judging, believers love to second-guess him. (Public) positions on abortion seem to follow this. Republicans (including Trump) are also very judgmental in their policy choices, whereas Democrats tend to be more inclusive and tolerant. So, I'd say that religion isn't really the fundamental alignment factor, but rather, the idea of judging others inferior and unworthy.

Taking it further, Democrats want us to pay for their tolerance and accommodation, because accommodation leads to programs that cost money. In doing so, they tend to be more patronizing. Yes, this is a form of judgment too (we all have to make decisions), but it's not one of good vs evil, but rather, able vs needy. And though this is also reflected in religion (alms giving and the like), I don't think religion isn't a fundamental alignment factor here either.

It's just that religion happens to fall along the same "lines of force".

Jose

But you can get around that judgmentalness because evangelicals know how to do political math. Scotus Promise is ++, sexist agnositic sexist pig is --. End result is a vote for Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0
In a surprise move, the House Republicans have seized control of Independent Ethics Office. Now it will be under the direct control of Congress.
By moving all of the authority to the House Ethics Committee, several ethics lawyers said, the House risks becoming far too protective of members accused of wrongdoing.
Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.
“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”
I think the GOP is preparing for a scandal laden year ahead of us from Trump. Or it's your bog standard semi-corrupt politicians protecting their own. Fox news says
Lawmakers would have the final say under the change. House Republicans voted 119-74 for the Goodlatte measure despite arguments from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., against the change. They failed to sway rank-and-file Republicans, some of whom have felt unfairly targeted by the OCE.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:14 am UTC

If there's any group of people where it's "better safe than sorry" when it comes to being overeager in starting investigations...
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:56 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Respecting religion would be a decent first step.
I like coalition building as much as the next guy. But not if this is the first step. It frames the question in a negative way. First, since the Democratic party isn't an Atheist front, one would have to assume there is something other than a lack of respect involved. Are most Democrats not Christians? This, IMO, comes down to acquiescing on abortion, Which I will buy into, only if Democratic women buy into it. Pence's selection as running mate is indicative of the future, despite Trump's hints otherwise. That's what drew my objection. To get Obama level support from Evangelicals all the party would seem to need to do is to put forth a clean candidate with no history. Like Obama.


Or maybe Clinton could have held at least one Religious rally or held at least one interview with a religious outlet.

The Clinton campaign ran a campaign that employed religious references — primarily as a way to accentuate a critique of her opponent’s moral character — but it included little religious outreach from the candidate herself. Hillary never directly asked for the support of evangelicals. She never had an interview with a major evangelical publication or outlet. Her campaign decided, as Democrats have often desired to, that religious voters — with limited exceptions — did not need to be sought in order to win. This view largely applied to Catholics as well, 23 percent of the electorate, as we learned from recent reports about the campaign’s decision to avoid a St. Patrick’s Day event because “white Catholics were not the audience she [Clinton] needed to spend time reaching out to.”


Democrats certainly aren't an atheist front, but Clinton ran a campaign that didn't even try to aim at the Religious voters. The fact remains that Evangelicals were more willing to vote for Obama than they were for Clinton.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mutex and 13 guests