Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8009
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:52 pm UTC

Right. I meant, they're not so hesitant about using it as I would like, and I think in the public consensus it will be hard to work against this - "Didn't we already talk about this? Isn't this the world we live in now?" sort of mentality.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

I just need to say when looking from across the Atlantic, and I know this is a Brit talking so please pass me the irony kazoo, US politics is just monumentally fucked up.

The BBC is reporting this as a 'major boost to Trump '. Really?
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:09 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:The BBC is reporting this as a 'major boost to Trump '. Really?


It really isn't. Its ambiguous at best. However, its certainly not the "comeback win from behind" that Democrats wanted. A lot of media seem to be overestimating the Democrat's chances on these matters, and its getting ridiculous. Just because Trump is unpopular doesn't mean that Democrats will suddenly start winning deep-Red states.

Democrats pushed extremely hard for a win that they most likely were never going to get. And Democrats still can't get it through their heads that there are significant portions of the country where Trump is actually popular.

If anything, Democrats hyped the race and then failed to deliver. I don't really think it says anything about 2018 prospects because Georgia is so deeply Republican it would have been utterly ridiculous to see a Democrat win there.

sardia wrote:
Mutex wrote:53% vs 47%. For a "safe" GOP seat, that seems awfully close.

That's actually better than expected from the GOP. A good result from Democrats would have kept the margin a lot under 5 points. I think Democrats are in a conundrum. The harder they fight for a seat, the more the Republicans get motivated. But if Democrats skate under the radar, the GOP is not motivated and the margin shrinks a lot. It's a tough tightrope to walk.
Lastly, everyone is going to take the wrong lesson from this.


Out-of-state money was pumped to support an out-of-district Candidate espousing values that didn't connect to the local population. The campaign was doomed from the start, and the noose only tightened as Democrats diverted national money into the race.

There's a deep distrust of outsiders mettling with local affairs in the psychology of voters. Democrats need to build up candidates from the grassroots up to stand a chance. That's the real issue at hand here: Democrats don't have as many viable candidates as Republicans at the local level.

In any case, the running of Ossoff: a 30-year-old political newbie vs the former Secretary of State of Georgia was impressive. But I don't think there was much of a chance of him winning.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8009
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

I really don't get why these races got so much attention. The only reason that seems to make sense is there's nothing else happening. But how are these two districts a barometer for the country? I don't get it, it seems like complete hype.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Jumble wrote:The BBC is reporting this as a 'major boost to Trump '. Really?


It really isn't. Its ambiguous at best. However, its certainly not the "comeback win from behind" that Democrats wanted. A lot of media seem to be overestimating the Democrat's chances on these matters, and its getting ridiculous. Just because Trump is unpopular doesn't mean that Democrats will suddenly start winning deep-Red states.

Democrats pushed extremely hard for a win that they most likely were never going to get. And Democrats still can't get it through their heads that there are significant portions of the country where Trump is actually popular.

If anything, Democrats hyped the race and then failed to deliver. I don't really think it says anything about 2018 prospects because Georgia is so deeply Republican it would have been utterly ridiculous to see a Democrat win there.

sardia wrote:
Mutex wrote:53% vs 47%. For a "safe" GOP seat, that seems awfully close.

That's actually better than expected from the GOP. A good result from Democrats would have kept the margin a lot under 5 points. I think Democrats are in a conundrum. The harder they fight for a seat, the more the Republicans get motivated. But if Democrats skate under the radar, the GOP is not motivated and the margin shrinks a lot. It's a tough tightrope to walk.
Lastly, everyone is going to take the wrong lesson from this.


Out-of-state money was pumped to support an out-of-district Candidate espousing values that didn't connect to the local population. The campaign was doomed from the start, and the noose only tightened as Democrats diverted national money into the race.

There's a deep distrust of outsiders mettling with local affairs in the psychology of voters. Democrats need to build up candidates from the grassroots up to stand a chance. That's the real issue at hand here: Democrats don't have as many viable candidates as Republicans at the local level.

In any case, the running of Ossoff: a 30-year-old political newbie vs the former Secretary of State of Georgia was impressive. But I don't think there was much of a chance of him winning.

I'm gonna come down hard on this one. Ossoff was either dead heat or a small polling error away from winning, that's not the impossible deep red district you described.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ff-handel/
]In that sense, Tuesday night poses the biggest risk to Democrats if it discourages them from recruiting quality candidates and providing them with enough money to run credible campaigns in districts as diverse as Georgia 6, South Carolina 5 and Montana. And the biggest risk to Republicans will be if they get too caught up in the narrative and ignore that the results in special elections so far indicate a lot of downside risk for the GOP next year.

Ossoff was a fine candidate, his only questionable move was to not hit Handel harder on her Trump support.
In addition, in order to predict the future midterm, the only thing that matters is the average margin of victory compared to the last 2 presidential elections.

If you gave me 24 more ossoff races in districts just like this one, I would easily expect half of them to go Democratic.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:06 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:The BBC is reporting this as a 'major boost to Trump '. Really?

Don't forget that 52% to 48% is an overwhelming majority, here in the UK, so obviously 53% to 47% is at least 50% more so...

;)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm gonna come down hard on this one. Ossoff was either dead heat or a small polling error away from winning, that's not the impossible deep red district you described.


The expectations of the polls aside, Ossoff was a political infant, running in a district he didn't even live in against a political veteran with 15-years of experience... with years of experience holding high offices of the State. He was doomed from the start. I stand by my assessment. Just forget about the dumb polls for a second... Ossoff had no chance.

The last Democrat to win in the 6th District of Georgia was in 1976. The District has voted Republican for the last 30+ years. This is the district that Newt fucking Gingrich served in for a decade.

He made a good run in spite of that though. Which might be encouraging to some, but its just a "moral victory" and not an actual victory that the Democrats want.

]In that sense, Tuesday night poses the biggest risk to Democrats if it discourages them from recruiting quality candidates and providing them with enough money to run credible campaigns in districts as diverse as Georgia 6, South Carolina 5 and Montana. And the biggest risk to Republicans will be if they get too caught up in the narrative and ignore that the results in special elections so far indicate a lot of downside risk for the GOP next year.

Ossoff was a fine candidate, his only questionable move was to not hit Handel harder on her Trump support.


I disagree. Ossoff's best chance was running a moderating message... and I know this because that's the strategy that Ossoff chose. Ossoff had the polling data and he likely knows the district better than you or I do.

Ossoff was willing to give an anti-Trump message IIRC earlier in the campaign. But it didn't seem to be working and he moderated his message. Remember, he's campaigning in a deep-red state. He needed the support of Trumpers to get elected in that district, so playing the role of the moderate was probably best.

Lets be frank here: Ossoff is the expert on his district. He was the best chance the Democrats had in the 6th District, he did his best, and his strategy probably was close to optimal given the conditions.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Opus_723
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:45 am UTC

Don't forget the South Carolina results last night.

I don't know why Democrats are upset. They're knocking these out of the park. We just haven't seen anything close to a swing district since November. Georgia is probably just quirky, or the crazy attention and spending artificially evened out turnout. Or, you know, they've elected Republicans for forty years. Whatever happened, it's an outlier. Dems are doing just fine. If they keep up these margins, they could take back the House.

Image

(EDIT: I would also point out that people are complaining that Ossof didn't improve on Clinton's numbers, but she already did weirdly well in this district. I think Ossof keeping a close margin is a victory in and of itself. The chart above only has Georgia 6 starting so far to the left is because of Clinton's outlier performance being weighted heavily in determining the lean. Before Clinton, Georgia 6 was WAY redder. Dems might have semi-permanently transformed this district into a moderate one over the past year.)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:45 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/le ... lame-game/
This seems very appropriate.
Long story short, Democrats are bad at politics, but will have a good 2018.
Couple key points:
Reluctant Trump voters don't like Trump, but are still with him, this is backed up by survey data. Bad for Democrats who expect a wave election.
How much to blame Ossoff? He was average but nobody else better ran. Democrats could have fielded a bad candidate and lost by 12 points. It also gets into why Nate things anti Trump would work better in Ossoff's race even instead of the other anti incumbent or anti GOP themes.

Blame pelosi? Any Democratic leader would have been attacked, but maybe she's a woman, which makes it worse.

Blame the Democratic brand?
The brand is good except maybe in the South.

Tldr look at the average movement from the 2 previous presidential elections to special election. That will tell you the Democrats will have a good year. Warning signs from Georgia is that high turnout is bad for Democrats now. Maybe they should engage in voter suppression.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:50 pm UTC

Is there a risk that the Democrats fall into the negative trap that the UK Labour party fell into last time - everyone knew what they were against. They were against Tories. It was really difficult to define what they were for.

To be honest, from this side of the pond, the 'anyone with a pulse who isn't a bigoted, half-wit, sexist arsehat Trump' party looks like a good choice but my heart tells me the Democrats may need to do more than that.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

Mutex
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:56 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:Is there a risk that the Democrats fall into the negative trap that the UK Labour party fell into last time - everyone knew what they were against. They were against Tories. It was really difficult to define what they were for.

"Last time" being in 2015? Because with the recent election it was the tories who ran an entirely negative campaign - they were against Corbyn, but not for much (apart from fox hunting) while Labour were the ones with the positive message.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:40 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:Is there a risk that the Democrats fall into the negative trap that the UK Labour party fell into last time - everyone knew what they were against. They were against Tories. It was really difficult to define what they were for.


Honestly, the Democrats basically did this in the 2016 election. One of the major complaints about the Clinton campaign was that it never felt like they had a clear vision. It was "stay the course" and "Oh me yarm Trump is a disaster". Not that there wasn't a lot in their platform to like, it's just it never really crystallized into a coherent message.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:23 pm UTC

Trump says perhaps he didn't make tapes after all.

Oh, so he was talking shit. Well, that's a change.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:33 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:Trump says perhaps he didn't make tapes after all.

Oh, so he was talking shit. Well, that's a change.

That's just his lawyer talking. It's probably true, but you can't trust anything he says now that Trump is lawyered up. Like do you believe Trump's statement that he isn't under investigation after he admitted that he was?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9769
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:51 pm UTC

The important thing for me is that the ACA subsidies are still there, albeit slightly reduced in 2020. Not happy, but my job is relatively safe.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8009
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:53 pm UTC

I'm sure that's comforting to everyone else.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5812
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

They are also getting rid of coverage for preexisting conditions, so a lot of people will be fucked.
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:38 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:They are also getting rid of coverage for preexisting conditions, so a lot of people will be fucked.


Where'd you see that? The articles I've been reading say they're keeping that but removing the individual mandate which means it just plain won't work (you know, only sign up once you're sick since there's no penalty in doing so).

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5812
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:49 pm UTC

Sorry, I was still basing that on the old version. They had waivers for states to eliminate preexisting condition coverage; looks like they got rid of that.
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Like do you believe Trump's statement that he isn't under investigation after he admitted that he was?
If Trump said that the sky is up and the ground is down, I'd probably go looking for an independent factchecking source first...

commodorejohn
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That's just his lawyer talking. It's probably true, but you can't trust anything he says now that Trump is lawyered up. Like do you believe Trump's statement that he isn't under investigation after he admitted that he was?

On top of which it's still pretty transparently (attempted) witness intimidation whether it's true or not.
"'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
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:06 am UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/em ... -carolina/
A little late, but Nate tears into Democrat's bullshit about their "50 state strategy". TLDR Democrats care too much about narratives and aren't concerned enough with winning elections by throwing money everywhere. The DNC says they want to campaign hard everywhere, but they don't back it up with money. Harry counters that Democrats should keep playing it low key. I'm with Nate, force Republicans to defend everywhere and find out what works. It still surprises me when a Republican benefited from higher turnout.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:20 am UTC

The republicans benefiting from a higher turnout depends on the region. In a typically red state, I'd expect more republicans so say "I'm not going to vote because it's going red anyway". So there's a bigger profit to republicans to get their voters to show up.

So one party pays a lot of attention (and money) to a particular region? Both parties and voters on both sides will notice this. Both parties pay a lot of attention and money to a particular region? Both sides will notice this a lot.

As said, there's been no election in a swing region yet. If the democrats can't win that, they're in big trouble.

Back in the time Obama was elected for the first time, I saw a report that said that the Democrats had the organisational skills that got them to win big time. It's shocking that they lost those skills in 8 years, as well as the knowledge that to get elected, you've got to go out and talk with people...

It's a mistake that seems to be made by every party once in a while. But the democrats have chosen a particularly bad time for that. They should have won this presidential race and they didn't because of the candidate and the lack of organisation and knowledge of what was going on. That's clear to almost everyone, but is it clear to the top of the democratic party?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8009
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:44 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Sorry, I was still basing that on the old version. They had waivers for states to eliminate preexisting condition coverage; looks like they got rid of that.

The new law apparently includes a clause that lets a state elect to get rid of all federal regulations and write their own, including eliminating coverage for preexisting conditions.

Also, Cory Gardner, Republican Colorado senator, has been part of the 13 Republicans that worked on the law and has apparently not read the law yet. My guess is he's biding his time until the vote so people don't call and tell him they're opposed to his position.

As far as I know, a bill in Senate has to receive a CBO estimate before a vote - surely they're trying to get around that if McConnell is planning to vote next week. How are they doing that?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9769
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:20 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I'm sure that's comforting to everyone else.


I'm taking what I can get at this point...

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm taking what I can get at this point...
Isn't that Trump's goal when negotiating? Looks like he's winning.

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: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:36 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I'm taking what I can get at this point...
Isn't that Trump's goal when negotiating? Looks like he's winning.

Jose

sometimes he cares more about money, and will say anything is winning so long as he makes money. (Like how he soft balls China after they approved his trademarks and anbang offered that barely concealed bribe to his son in law.
Other times he will want to "win"so badly that he'll make less money or push bad deals on himself. That's just Trump being a big baby. (I refuse to use psychology terms on him).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:26 pm UTC

Yes but the general technique seems to be to be utterly outrageous, and keep doubling down, until you wear the opponent down and they'll see anything as an improvement. People give up totally on the original goal. That is what I see happening. The resigned: "I'm taking what I can get at this point." evidences this.

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: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:54 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Yes but the general technique seems to be to be utterly outrageous, and keep doubling down, until you wear the opponent down and they'll see anything as an improvement. People give up totally on the original goal. That is what I see happening. The resigned: "I'm taking what I can get at this point." evidences this.

Jose

I'm not saying he doesn't do that, but Trump isn't a one dimensional character. He's like a 2 dimensional caricature. Maybe even 3.

Part of me hopes the news cycle will slow down enough so the public can really digest what Congress is going to do to healthcare. This bill is ridiculously unpopular but Trump is like white noise. Even the big health giants are muted.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:46 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Thesh wrote:They are also getting rid of coverage for preexisting conditions, so a lot of people will be fucked.


Where'd you see that? The articles I've been reading say they're keeping that but removing the individual mandate which means it just plain won't work (you know, only sign up once you're sick since there's no penalty in doing so).


I thought the change to pre-existing conditions was that they were required to cover them, but the premiums for people with pre-existing conditions weren't capped. So you could get coverage, but you'd be dumped into a high risk pool with a massive deductible and payments of $4000/mo or whatever.

Opus_723
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:03 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As far as I know, a bill in Senate has to receive a CBO estimate before a vote - surely they're trying to get around that if McConnell is planning to vote next week. How are they doing that?


I don't have a link, but I recall reading that they have been sending drafts to the CBO this whole time, and plan to have a CBO score early next week.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:18 pm UTC

Washington Post releases a massive story documenting the Russian hacking campaign during the election and the Obama administration's tepid response.

A few highlights:
Spoiler:
Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump

[...]

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.

[...]

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

[...]

Officials described the president’s reaction as grave. Obama “was deeply concerned and wanted as much information as fast as possible,” a former official said. “He wanted the entire intelligence community all over this.”

[...]

Russia experts had begun to see a troubling pattern of propaganda in which fictitious news stories, assumed to be generated by Moscow, proliferated across social-media platforms.

[...]

Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets. Russia had gained entry to DNC systems in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, but the breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report by The Post.

[...]

[The Obama administration] were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.

They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.

[...]

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

[...]

To some, Obama’s determination to avoid politicizing the Russia issue had the opposite effect: It meant that he allowed politics to shape his administration’s response to what some believed should have been treated purely as a national security threat.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:42 am UTC

sardia wrote:I'm not saying he doesn't do that, but Trump isn't a one dimensional character. He's like a 2 dimensional caricature. Maybe even 3.

For very small values of two. Or three.

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
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3609
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Trump presidency

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:20 am UTC

It's hazardous to consider that someone is less complex, or even less intelligent, simple because you disagree with their decisions and politics. Trump is just as much a human being, with all the nuances that encompasses, as Hillary or you and me.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:46 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:It's hazardous to consider that someone is less complex, or even less intelligent, simple because you disagree with their decisions and politics. Trump is just as much a human being, with all the nuances that encompasses, as Hillary or you and me.

Well... Trump is a cartoon villain, Hillary is a lizard-person, I am a figment of your imagination and you are a butterfly dreaming that you're a man. But otherwise I agree with you.... ;)

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Koa » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:09 am UTC

It's hazardous to consider that someone who thinks Trump is less complex or intelligent is doing so simply because of political disagreements. Полезный идиот. He's definitely complex in the sense that he's a great case study but that's not necessarily the same as being complex in the non-caricature sense. It might not make much sense for someone to despise someone else while also respecting their existence and personal experience or life story. It might seem like a slippery slope, and maybe sometimes it is for certain people, but not for me.
Last edited by Koa on Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:24 am UTC

(Trump is indeed complex... And/or predictable, probably feeling the need to distract from the Healthcare thing...)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diadem » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:42 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:(Trump is indeed complex... And/or predictable, probably feeling the need to distract from the Healthcare thing...)

So Trump is attacking Obama for not doing enough against Russian election hacking in favor of Trump.

You know, I think I agree with Trump on this one.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Koa » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:21 pm UTC

I heard him say that on Fox today and it got a laugh out of me. It doesn't get much more inane than that. I would be interested to hear if conservative media is running with it. It's the same old tactic though. The American public is deeply confused about what is going on, so as soon as something against the administration starts to stick they hijack it. The public is aware that it's being bombarded with fake news? Spin it and hijack it, BBC is fake news. The public is aware that Russia meddled? Spin it and hijack it, blame Obama. When Kellyanne Conway said "alternative facts" she was dead on the money. These things continue to stack on top of each other to create a complete alternative worldview. That's why the country is so divided; it's brainwashing, cultivating the peoples' innate bias.

It's chaos in the sense that they'll throw out anything to see what sticks, but it's also systematic in the sense that the lies are compounding in the minds of the public. It's remarkably difficult for people with dramatically opposite worldviews to have coherent discourse, and the people who don't care enough to keep up want to stay as far away from politics as possible. The media absolutely loves it though. Conservatives run to their media for affirmations and awaiting the glorious day when the Obama shadow government or the liberal elites are taken down. There's so much information now that they can shine a spotlight to create any narrative, and it can be true in some sense. Liberals run to their media to keep up with the insanity.

I can definitely appreciate it as an information weapon. Russia first started learning it back in the late 1950's, then they perfected it by attacking their own people. When they found success in Ukraine they ramped up their global efforts. Several trillions of dollars in funding. Lies and bots are cheap but the money enables the conquest through propaganda. Amazing ROI.

People say that Trump isn't taking advice from his various councils. Trump is no mastermind, he's being advised alright, just not domestically. He's pushing people out of politics, he's facilitating the creation of the alternate worldview, and he's weakening the public through any policy he can push through with the help of the well-funded GOP. All because he's a supreme narcissist. He's a pawn, a puppet. Why would he pull out of the Paris climate accord? You need not look further than which country is the leading oil producer in the world. On and on...

War has changed again. This isn't going away and it can only get worse. Even if the US manages to pull out of the downward spiral other countries are more vulnerable to this attack, they're just less juicy targets at the moment. Watch Finland, Georgia, Greece, and Mongolia. And as soon as we can convincingly fake audio/video through technology the hinges are going to fly off this thing. If Le Penn had won I would have said this is the death of democracy, so I'll just say democracy has been mangled in a car wreck and is in critical condition. The attacks against Macron have worked from what I can tell of the few anecdotes of French people I've spoken to. I think a quiet and relatively slow-moving WW3 has started and it looks so different that we can't identify it yet. If food starts to become scarce due to climate change... I don't know. I should watch How I learned to stop worrying and love the propaganda. Meanwhile, Fox news is focused on the potential for NK to shut down the US energy grid. I can't even.

Sorry.
Last edited by Koa on Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:24 pm UTC

Don't over blow this story. Information warfare has real limits. I'd say look at the French election to see the limits, but you did and came away with the opposite conclusion.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests