6 ms·

I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in r

I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Do you know him well enough to shed light on his personal motivations? Frankly, though spies are frequently the heroes in movies, in real life I think there's good reason to be suspicious of that type of character. If he actually got installed by the House, there'd be widespread unrest. We know he knows that's not a realistic option, because a) reps would never do something that would upset their constituents so seriously and b) if they did, there's a real likelihood of armed resistance. So what's the end game here? He just felt so bad that Utah may go Trump he felt he had no option but to step in and make sure that it didn't go down in history as a pro-Trump state? That's the only benefit McMullin can offer, and it's only valuable if Trump gets elected and actually turns out to be Hitler 2.0. Then Utah can have a clean nose. In practice the only thing McMullin is doing is making a Clinton presidency more likely. Ross Perot served the same function in 1992, taking ~20% of the popular vote, probably 15% of which would've gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race. Given McMullin's background as both a CIA operative and an international banker, I think it's fair to ask just where his intentions lie.
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. With regard to his personal motivations -- he's clearly a patriot, as his record of service as an intelligence officer more than sufficiently demonstrates. I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. I would likely do the same if I had the same opportunity set that he currently does.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. I've known other field intel officers in real life, and while I enjoy their friendship and admire them for many things, there's no doubt that they're a little different than everyone else. That's not usually a problem in the course of everyday life, but setting oneself up as a political candidate for high office is not everyday life anymore. While you need to be both intelligent and highly skilled to work for intel agencies, you also need to have, at best, a fluid view of personal integrity and authenticity. I don't see how this is based on "Hollywood stereotypes", since movies usually portray spies as superheroes. >If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. As a member of the LDS community you reference, he sets off my bullshit detector. He's baiting Mormons hard by using specific inside-baseball phrases. He's exploiting the opportunity created by the heavy LDS distaste for both candidates. He'll only rank significantly in states with high LDS populations (evangelicals are generally suspicious of Mormons, and more likely to be comfortable with Trump). I'm sensitive to this kind of thing. I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote. >I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive?
    - selimthegrim 10y ago
      Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the Constitution in its moment of danger?
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        Not really. While this is widely believed, it's apocryphal. [0] If we do believe the apocryphal account, there are still a couple of issues. First, it doesn't imbue a duty to vote for a Mormon guy. If the Constitution really were in maximum danger, it'd be dubious that voting in a normal election would be the mechanism used to save it. Second, it doesn't say that a Mormon will save the Constitution by becoming president or anything like that. It says the Elders of Israel (that is, the men of the Church) will save it. That means more than voting for one guy. It probably means something more like being instrumental in a major cultural adjustment that would cause the principles in the Constitution to be valued again. This is harder than voting, so people don't prefer this interpretation. It may not even be literal -- the Constitution could be suspended/ineffective in what we now know as the U.S., but "saved" by Mormon elders who set up a separate government that substantially respects its principles. Whether one accepts this apocryphal prophecy or not, it does not mean Mormon candidates should be favored, and IMO, it shouldn't be a significant factor for Mormon voters. [0] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white...
- edko 10y ago
  His intentions don't necessarily have to be short term. If he performs well in this election, that could be a solid launch for another kind of candidacy (senator, governor, secretary of something, party leadership, etc.)
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    That's true. Normally one would ask which party he's trying to endear himself to with a third-party run (usually a big no-no), but it's pretty obvious that there's a large percentage of mainstream Republicans who'd prefer an HRC win to a Trump win (probably because a Trump win would solidify the new direction of the party in a way those people are not happy about). McMullin's role in denying the Trump win, which may actually end up being significant if states in the Mormon Corridor (including AZ) go blue, would bode well for his career as a Republican in future elections (as long as Trump loses).
    - edko 10y ago
      Well, imagine he wins Utah, and his electoral college votes are what Hillary or Trump need to become president: the guy could negotiate anything with either. Secretary of State? You got it.
      - acomar 10y ago
        No, this is the exact scenario described in the main article. If McMullin wins Utah and the EC is split, then the decision goes to the House. Any negotiation being done will happen there and will hinge on the Senate's decision for the VP.
        edko 10y ago
        He can negotiate before the EC meets. There is no obligation for his electors to vote for him.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
- the_watcher 10y ago
  He's a pretty strong advocate of getting independent candidates national ballot access. Winning a state and causing turmoil (even if he isn't the ultimate winner) would be a great first step towards breaking the two party vicegrip.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    People say this, but we had a similar situation as recently as Perot and it didn't change anything (though admittedly, Perot did not win a majority in any state). Perhaps now that Trump successfully "hijacked" the GOP from the establishment and Sanders gave Clinton a serious run for her money in the primary, there will be more flexibility on independent ballot access and other third-party friendly laws, since major politicians may see that as a last resort. McMullin may be a case study for them, so I can see how he'd act as supporting evidence for this type of movement, but it'd only ever be enacted out of fear that the establishment will be unable to control the party structure moving forward.
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      It's definitely an uphill battle. Also, it remains to be seen if Trumpism requires Trump himself to remain viable or not (I'm skeptical, but I was skeptical of essentially everything about his candidacy's viability, so what do I know?). If it turns out that Trumpism was more about him than his actual ideas, then McMullin will be less impactful. He's really a fairly generic Utah Republican, so if Trumpism fades, his success will just be pointed to as evidence that the GOP still works. Gary Johnson taking a state would be more impactful, as he'd have operated outside of the two major parties for multiple election cycles (I do not find this likely at all).
- therobot24 10y ago
  538 on the ross perot myth, should give it a watch http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/ basically, those who voted for perot were evenly split between both parties, so he actually didn't influence the outcome of the election through votes cast.
- brainfire 10y ago
  I'm highly skeptical of the claim there would be "armed resistance" to the House choosing McMullin to be president.
DominikR 10y ago
> he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life. Did he torture people to death?
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  He did an interview on Bloomberg where the hosts ask and press him on "Did you ever kill anyone?" (the one question that you're never supposed to ask veterans, and presumably, intel agents). He implies, but doesn't say, that he did.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Well many veterans did but that doesn't they were immoral. When you're in war people try to kill you. I just don't like it when people admire what was shown in this TV series. (yes, I felt it was cool back then, but I've realised sine then that this series really just indoctrinated me to accept torture)

I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.

cookiecaper 10y ago

Do you know him well enough to shed light on his personal motivations? Frankly, though spies are frequently the heroes in movies, in real life I think there's good reason to be suspicious of that type of character. If he actually got installed by the House, there'd be widespread unrest. We know he knows that's not a realistic option, because a) reps would never do something that would upset their constituents so seriously and b) if they did, there's a real likelihood of armed resistance. So what's the end game here? He just felt so bad that Utah may go Trump he felt he had no option but to step in and make sure that it didn't go down in history as a pro-Trump state? That's the only benefit McMullin can offer, and it's only valuable if Trump gets elected and actually turns out to be Hitler 2.0. Then Utah can have a clean nose. In practice the only thing McMullin is doing is making a Clinton presidency more likely. Ross Perot served the same function in 1992, taking ~20% of the popular vote, probably 15% of which would've gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race. Given McMullin's background as both a CIA operative and an international banker, I think it's fair to ask just where his intentions lie.

leroy_masochist 10y ago
I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. With regard to his personal motivations -- he's clearly a patriot, as his record of service as an intelligence officer more than sufficiently demonstrates. I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. I would likely do the same if I had the same opportunity set that he currently does.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. I've known other field intel officers in real life, and while I enjoy their friendship and admire them for many things, there's no doubt that they're a little different than everyone else. That's not usually a problem in the course of everyday life, but setting oneself up as a political candidate for high office is not everyday life anymore. While you need to be both intelligent and highly skilled to work for intel agencies, you also need to have, at best, a fluid view of personal integrity and authenticity. I don't see how this is based on "Hollywood stereotypes", since movies usually portray spies as superheroes. >If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. As a member of the LDS community you reference, he sets off my bullshit detector. He's baiting Mormons hard by using specific inside-baseball phrases. He's exploiting the opportunity created by the heavy LDS distaste for both candidates. He'll only rank significantly in states with high LDS populations (evangelicals are generally suspicious of Mormons, and more likely to be comfortable with Trump). I'm sensitive to this kind of thing. I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote. >I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive?
  - selimthegrim 10y ago
    Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the Constitution in its moment of danger?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Not really. While this is widely believed, it's apocryphal. [0] If we do believe the apocryphal account, there are still a couple of issues. First, it doesn't imbue a duty to vote for a Mormon guy. If the Constitution really were in maximum danger, it'd be dubious that voting in a normal election would be the mechanism used to save it. Second, it doesn't say that a Mormon will save the Constitution by becoming president or anything like that. It says the Elders of Israel (that is, the men of the Church) will save it. That means more than voting for one guy. It probably means something more like being instrumental in a major cultural adjustment that would cause the principles in the Constitution to be valued again. This is harder than voting, so people don't prefer this interpretation. It may not even be literal -- the Constitution could be suspended/ineffective in what we now know as the U.S., but "saved" by Mormon elders who set up a separate government that substantially respects its principles. Whether one accepts this apocryphal prophecy or not, it does not mean Mormon candidates should be favored, and IMO, it shouldn't be a significant factor for Mormon voters. [0] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white...
edko 10y ago
His intentions don't necessarily have to be short term. If he performs well in this election, that could be a solid launch for another kind of candidacy (senator, governor, secretary of something, party leadership, etc.)
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  That's true. Normally one would ask which party he's trying to endear himself to with a third-party run (usually a big no-no), but it's pretty obvious that there's a large percentage of mainstream Republicans who'd prefer an HRC win to a Trump win (probably because a Trump win would solidify the new direction of the party in a way those people are not happy about). McMullin's role in denying the Trump win, which may actually end up being significant if states in the Mormon Corridor (including AZ) go blue, would bode well for his career as a Republican in future elections (as long as Trump loses).
  - edko 10y ago
    Well, imagine he wins Utah, and his electoral college votes are what Hillary or Trump need to become president: the guy could negotiate anything with either. Secretary of State? You got it.
    - acomar 10y ago
      No, this is the exact scenario described in the main article. If McMullin wins Utah and the EC is split, then the decision goes to the House. Any negotiation being done will happen there and will hinge on the Senate's decision for the VP.
      - edko 10y ago
        He can negotiate before the EC meets. There is no obligation for his electors to vote for him.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
the_watcher 10y ago
He's a pretty strong advocate of getting independent candidates national ballot access. Winning a state and causing turmoil (even if he isn't the ultimate winner) would be a great first step towards breaking the two party vicegrip.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  People say this, but we had a similar situation as recently as Perot and it didn't change anything (though admittedly, Perot did not win a majority in any state). Perhaps now that Trump successfully "hijacked" the GOP from the establishment and Sanders gave Clinton a serious run for her money in the primary, there will be more flexibility on independent ballot access and other third-party friendly laws, since major politicians may see that as a last resort. McMullin may be a case study for them, so I can see how he'd act as supporting evidence for this type of movement, but it'd only ever be enacted out of fear that the establishment will be unable to control the party structure moving forward.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    It's definitely an uphill battle. Also, it remains to be seen if Trumpism requires Trump himself to remain viable or not (I'm skeptical, but I was skeptical of essentially everything about his candidacy's viability, so what do I know?). If it turns out that Trumpism was more about him than his actual ideas, then McMullin will be less impactful. He's really a fairly generic Utah Republican, so if Trumpism fades, his success will just be pointed to as evidence that the GOP still works. Gary Johnson taking a state would be more impactful, as he'd have operated outside of the two major parties for multiple election cycles (I do not find this likely at all).
therobot24 10y ago
538 on the ross perot myth, should give it a watch http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/ basically, those who voted for perot were evenly split between both parties, so he actually didn't influence the outcome of the election through votes cast.
brainfire 10y ago
I'm highly skeptical of the claim there would be "armed resistance" to the House choosing McMullin to be president.

DominikR 10y ago

> he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life. Did he torture people to death?

cookiecaper 10y ago
He did an interview on Bloomberg where the hosts ask and press him on "Did you ever kill anyone?" (the one question that you're never supposed to ask veterans, and presumably, intel agents). He implies, but doesn't say, that he did.
- DominikR 10y ago
  Well many veterans did but that doesn't they were immoral. When you're in war people try to kill you. I just don't like it when people admire what was shown in this TV series. (yes, I felt it was cool back then, but I've realised sine then that this series really just indoctrinated me to accept torture)