|
Crypt N. Crunch posted:"Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Has there been any explanations yet for why polling was so far off? Was it something wrong with the likely voter model? The only explaination I have seen is that public polling quality is just really lovely now. Which doesn't explain much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:If they set up the server such that the emails were not initially received on a separate government server into an account and then forwarded, but rather set it up so that her email alias directed straight to her personal server, than she didn't "remove" anything. It's not as if she was POP'ing her email to her personal device(s) and deleting the server copy. The unauthorized location part could be applicable, but once again, she didn't remove anything I believe, simple directed the email to the server. So it's definitely a grey area, in part because the code is so woefully out of date. Also that code refers to classified information, which wasn't what that email service was supposed to be for. Even if it'd just been a @state.gov email address on the @state.gov email server, using it for classified information would be illegal under the code, because the only authorized locations for handling that stuff is at classified terminals where you give up your cell phone and get checked in first. People bringing this code up always, always, always obfuscate that it does not make illegal doing anything whatosever with government emails that are not classified. e: but nobody cares because you say EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS and people immediately pick up a "hillary for prison" sign and start chanting
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
The answer to what the next 4-8 years will be like is "nobody knows". Trying to predict and soothsay our future has failed miserably. We cannot govern and change through inaction and hoping for the best. We must begin taking action and shaping our future in our image, not just sitting back and crossing our fingers, looking for something to make us feel better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Anyway to answer the initial question, Mark Blyth was bullish on Trump because he sees it as part of a global phenomenon ("Trumpism") in line with Brexit, far right parties in Europe, etc. Here are a couple of videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI) which I think are pretty good and give some predictions about what comes next. He's actually a bit more optimistic for the United States because of the strength of our economy and his doubts about whether Trump can do much damage to it. Blyth is a lefty and thinks the left need to start offering solutions to working/middle class problems. Mark Blyth is a smart dude and his book is worth picking up if you're interested in a solid take on why conservative fiscal policy is so dangerous. He definitely views things in a primarily economic context, but I think the points that he's making are important to understand even if you attribute Trump's success mostly to racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Has there been any explanations yet for why polling was so far off? Was it something wrong with the likely voter model? My head canon is that the election was rigged. Maybe the FSB pulled it off. Don't bother explaining why that's not true with facts and reasons, we no longer live in that world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Also another thing that tanked them was their belief that they could poach college educated whites from the GOP with a poo poo candidate like Trump. When they came home for their boy in a big way it was too late for Clinton to pivot and try to get the people in Erie, PA back on her side. Speaking of Erie https://twitter.com/jmilescoleman/status/800002732023279616 Scranton has an interesting map as well https://twitter.com/jmilescoleman/status/800380033009324032
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Speaking of Erie After Michael Scott left, the Scranton economy was unable to recover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Mark Blyth is a smart dude and his book is worth picking up if you're interested in a solid take on why conservative fiscal policy is so dangerous. He definitely views things in a primarily economic context, but I think the points that he's making are important to understand even if you attribute Trump's success mostly to racism. Yeah. In that first video I think he does a good job of paying heed to the racism angle as well--he definitely doesn't dismiss it, even if it's clear he has (for obvious reasons) a bias towards explaining things in terms of economics. And his larger point, which is that it's much easier to win elections/minds over economic points than it is to convince people not to be racist is apt, I think. Man I was feeling a bit better yesterday but today I feel lovely again. It's so hard not to be afraid right now; the signs are all bad. I can't believe how much of our future depends on whether or not Donald loving Trump is actually lazy, or cynical, or fascist, or what. What a horrible, insane gamble our country has made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Percentages don't tell you much when the differences are "only" thousands or even hundreds of people in many cases. Also, a lot of solid R voting Trumpers wouldn't admit they were Trumping, it was even on evil communist NPR this morning with a lady from the south (of course) complaining about not wanting to get yelled at. She also said Brietbart is a solid, valid news source and "Shut up with that crap" about it.  I really just see these types as 2008 Palin Grizzly Moms Turbo 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Percentages don't tell you much when the differences are "only" thousands or even hundreds of people in many cases. I think this is all breaks down into two world views. The left wants to explain and convince and contextualize, to self analyze to doubt and to debate relative merits. That's why we can't have a cohesive policy strategy in congress and why we can't seem to unite our disparate wings. The right wants to shout about how simple solutions are all we need and then shift all contradictory evidence to some manner of lie or plot by the great other. The stupid and the lazy are going to either pick self reflective debate, or rah rah go America gently caress yeah! Who do you think is going to win? If the left wants to start winning again, we need to drill something into our heads. Intellectual debate and civility is for polite closed doors company the way that jokes about minorities are for the right. In public and on the media we need a leftist fox news that stops navel gazing. We need to simplify and hone our message to the very loving bone. No more expecting empathy and social justice, frame everything about what will benefit you in the simplest most basic level. Republicans are bad and want to punish your hard work. Republicans are liars and want to raise your taxes. The Republican tax plan will take money out of your pocket and line theirs. Start from these premises and let people work backwards instead of stating the republican tax plan is regressive and will massively punish working class families and disproportionately harm the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Mark Blyth is a smart dude and his book is worth picking up if you're interested in a solid take on why conservative fiscal policy is so dangerous. He definitely views things in a primarily economic context, but I think the points that he's making are important to understand even if you attribute Trump's success mostly to racism. What I liked about his analysis is that he doesn't even claim that the far right isn't awful and racist and sexist. Essentially I understood his thesis to be, we set up a hornet's nest called "economic unrest" next to another one that was already there called "racism." The left kicked the first one, but the far right kicked both and now they're benefitting greatly from the resulting electoral sweeps. I feel like we should take note however that Blyth isn't terribly optimistic about the chances of the populist left to succeed based on the European left wing parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
deathbysnusnu posted:I think this is all breaks down into two world views. The left wants to explain and convince and contextualize, to self analyze to doubt and to debate relative merits. That's why we can't have a cohesive policy strategy in congress and why we can't seem to unite our disparate wings. Leftists dance like eh-eh-eh-eh-eh Rightists dance like oh-oh-oh-oh-oh
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
At this very instant next door some dude is banging away on Freep about how conservatives are the cool rationalists while the left is guided entirely by emotion and call anyone who disagrees with their kneejerk reactions racists. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800332639844659201 Donald Trump is considering James Mattis, a board member of Theranos as his secretary of defense. According to Leon Panetta's book, Obama's administration was cautious giving him much power because of his desire for military conflict with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:At this very instant next door some dude is banging away on Freep about how conservatives are the cool rationalists while the left is guided entirely by emotion and call anyone who disagrees with their kneejerk reactions racists. Is this the part where we pretend conservatives have...any good policy positions? I can't think of a single issue where conservatives both correctly identify the problem and provide a solution that fixes it without being super dumb or discriminatory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Melania and Barron Trump won't be moving to the White House Michelle Obama is like Whaa?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Is this the part where we pretend conservatives have...any good policy positions? Logically there must be something because they can't be wrong about everything, surely? Some things have both positives and negatives and there is political disagreement about which outweighs the other, such as with fracking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800332639844659201 It's against the law for him to nominate Mattis. https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/800407991077994496
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Is this the part where we pretend conservatives have...any good policy positions? This is the part where I point out that every single thing in the world being explained by 'everyone who agrees with me arrived at all their positions through pure reason and everyone who disagrees is just a big dummy' is the kind of gratifying just-so story that appeals to big dummies across the political spectrum, and the objective merits of loosely defined American-style 'left' and 'right' policy are probably not the main reason you, random schmo, are overwhelmingly likely to vote for the same party your parents and immediate social circle do. Sorta like how the lament of the other guy being a monolithic hivemind that always falls into line to screw you, the clever individualist, carries on entirely unaffected by the Republicans fragmenting so badly their own speaker resigned rather than work with his colleagues from another wing of the party and their base just nominated and then elected Mickey Mouse rather than continue to support their party leaders, who had started defecting en masse to their most hated enemy on the 'left' until she lost. This must be that context and analysis we were talking about, huh? A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Is this the part where we pretend conservatives have...any good policy positions? My whole point is that the ideas don't matter for poo poo. Trump sold a narrative that was easy to digest and played to enough peoples strong motivating instincts; my tribe is better than your tribe, the idiots in Washington need common sense, stop illegal immigration with a giant wall etc. Hillary mostly just played to people figuring things out with boring book learning and trusting expertise. The problem is with Google everyone now styles themselves an expert and self affirming bias as research. Obama didn't win because his ideas were good, he won because he's an amazing orator who projected confidence and gave a lot of people tingles down their spine. If we want to win again, we need simple easy answer framing to why our solutions are better than the other guys (save the real details for the people implementing it), and we need someone who makes speeches like the kind presidents make in movies to sell it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:It's against the law for him to nominate Mattis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What I liked about his analysis is that he doesn't even claim that the far right isn't awful and racist and sexist. Essentially I understood his thesis to be, we set up a hornet's nest called "economic unrest" next to another one that was already there called "racism." The left kicked the first one, but the far right kicked both and now they're benefitting greatly from the resulting electoral sweeps. Yeah. The main reason that I post his talks is because he's pretty much saying what I usually want to say, except better and more smarterer. The US right is a primarily racist coalition, but at some point the Democrats allowed them to start siphoning off voters that shouldn't be pulling the lever for a Republican. I have absolutely no idea what can be done about that, but it's important to at least properly identify the problem. quote:I feel like we should take note however that Blyth isn't terribly optimistic about the chances of the populist left to succeed based on the European left wing parties. Mark Blyth is a bit of a gloomy guy, to be fair. The reason he's (somewhat) optimistic about the American economy is because he thinks the rest of the world is going to fall apart and it'll create a countercyclical effect for us as money runs to the relative safety of the US. That's probably not going to do anything to help anyone who isn't already doing pretty well, but it'll keep us trudging along with very slow growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Or changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
trump can get a waiver from congress for him. it's not a big deal
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Has there been any explanations yet for why polling was so far off? Was it something wrong with the likely voter model? The national polls werent wrong, they just measured the popular vote. The real question is why the local state polls and exit polls were wrong. We seem to be doing all our post hoc analysis based on polls that still showed Hillary winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Scott Walker's first few years in Wisconsin is a good example of what America will be like for Trumps term. Massive sustained protests and constant examples of horrible policy combined with literal actual law breaking that is either ignored or changed after the crime. It is gonna be awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Scott Walker's first few years in Wisconsin is a good example of what America will be like for Trumps term. Massive sustained protests and constant examples of horrible policy combined with literal actual law breaking that is either ignored or changed after the crime. And Scott Walker is still in power, right? Buckle up. We're in for 8+ years of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
My plan right now is to prepare for the worst by getting an Italian passport through my dad. If poo poo goes south, I'll leave, but until then I plan to stay and fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread for this question, but is NPI legitimately a "white nationalist" organization as I am seeing reported, or is that just more sensationalist clickbait bullshit? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? I only ask because I have an acquaintance from high school who has been for years a lovely libertarian blogger. He is attending the NPI conference in DC right now. His politics suck but libetarianism to nationalism is a pretty big ideological leap.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
eighty-four merc posted:Not sure if this is the right thread for this question, but is NPI legitimately a "white nationalist" organization as I am seeing reported, or is that just more sensationalist clickbait bullshit? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Edit: Libertarianism is basically "I'm white and therefore privileged, and need to create reasons in my head why that is ok and not something to feel guilty about" so its basically just a hop, skip and a jump to full on master race poo poo. cheese fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
eighty-four merc posted:Not sure if this is the right thread for this question, but is NPI legitimately a "white nationalist" organization as I am seeing reported, or is that just more sensationalist clickbait bullshit? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/groups quote:The institute's mission statement says it aims "to elevate the consciousness of whites, ensure our biological and cultural continuity, and protect our civil rights. The institute ... will study the consequences of the ongoing influx that non-Western populations pose to our national identity." In an August 2005 speech to the Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance (see group profile below), Regnery warned that "within the first or secondhand memories of people in this room, the white race may go from master of the universe to an anthropological curiosity." e: Sever, he's a Nazi now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
This line of grovelling dipshits is getting obnoxious. https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/800431408598646784
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:And Scott Walker is still in power, right? Buckle up. We're in for 8+ years of Trump. A Presidential reelection campaign is worlds different from some podunk Gubernatorial race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
eighty-four merc posted:His politics suck but libetarianism to nationalism is a pretty big ideological leap. No, not at all. Libertarians have been allied with white nationalists since Lew Rockwell engineered it in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I guess I had hoped it was, like, racist or white supremacist insofar as anything a white person in America does is. But goddamn.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
eighty-four merc posted:Holy poo poo. No, you gotta sever. He wasn't joking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Logically there must be something because they can't be wrong about everything, surely? I can't really think of one off the top of my head. I'm sure there will be a conservative poster around soon to correct me.  Ok, I don't disagree, but I'd also postulate that this isn't mutually exclusive with "but conservatives are still stupid/evil." I mean, sure. I'm just not convinced we can outsell the conservatives, and even if we do once we inevitably lose an election or two they get back into power and poo poo all over the walls again. It's a constant uphill battle and we don't really have time for that anymore re: global warming. Paradoxish posted:Yeah. The main reason that I post his talks is because he's pretty much saying what I usually want to say, except better and more smarterer. The US right is a primarily racist coalition, but at some point the Democrats allowed them to start siphoning off voters that shouldn't be pulling the lever for a Republican. I have absolutely no idea what can be done about that, but it's important to at least properly identify the problem. That's the one part of his analysis he leaves out that I dislike, which is the existence of the Southern Strategy and backlash against desegregation. His thesis that Trumpism is happening across the West is sound, but I think that the particulars in America are important. The fact that populist left parties can't garner more than 30% of the vote in Europe is not promising however. Re: Scott Walker, yeah... it's gonna be that but with the power of federal regulatory appointees. It's gonna suck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
 Guys I'm at Tortilla Coast having lunch, but I don't see any of the tea party caucus guys. Also, this is not good tex-mex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
I am unbelievably triggered by the presence of Chinese state propaganda in that newspaper box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:38
|
|
