News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[thankz]

go jeb bush!

 

[Digitalism]

Jeb needs all the help he can get

 

[thankz]

Donald trump just threw his hat in the ring, now I'm conflicted, him or jeb bush.

 

[Czcibor]

I find most policies and promises by Democratic members are great, popular, sound, scientifically concise. Why are there still voters for Republicans?

Technical question - are you making an ideologically loaded statement here? Or really don't get their ideology and just are curious?

[clarification about me: not-American, not fitting well right/left axis]

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Technical question - are you making an ideologically loaded statement here? Or really don't get their ideology and just are curious?
[clarification about me: not-American, not fitting well right/left axis]

Since early March, I became deeply in love with politics.

 

[Czcibor]

Since early March, I became deeply in love with politics.

Voting is not much about logic, but about emotions.

"popular" - among whom? (not a loaded question, just think for a while that you presumably deal with quite unrepresentative sample of your citizens)

"scientifically concise" - and you want to advertise that to right wing creationists or maybe to left wing members of anti-vax movements? ;)
(anyway, I'd wonder about some policies... like insisting on transporting oil through railways instead of using pipeline...)

 

[HallsofIvy]

Donald trump just threw his hat in the ring, now I'm conflicted, him or jeb bush.

I figure that this pretty much guarantees that whoever the Democrats put up will win. Trump is loose cannon who is already badmouthing all of the other Republican candidates but we know that he can't go a week without putting his foot in his mouth.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Ann Coulter on why women should not have the right to vote: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ot-have-right-vote-they-can-still-write-books

This is not the first time Coulter voiced her support for female disenfranchisement. In 2007, Coulter said that “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat [sic] president.” Coulter described this as a “pipe dream” and a “personal fantasy” of hers that women, especially the single women who “are voting so stupidly,” will finally be silenced.

 

[lisab]

Ann Coulter on why women should not have the right to vote: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ot-have-right-vote-they-can-still-write-books

Meh, she's such a gadfly. She found a formula that sells just enough books.

 

[WWGD]

Meh, she's such a gadfly. She found a formula that sells just enough books.

It is sad to see how many people on both sides make a living this way, with their over-the-top-titled books: " How so-and-so is destroying our Democracy" , or " How The (Conservatives/Liberals) are compromising our natural security" , etc. And sad to see so many people buy these books.

 

[EM_Guy]

Silicon Waffle said, "I find most policies and promises by Democratic members are great, popular, sound, scientifically concise. Why are there still voters for Republicans?"

I have no loyalty to the Republican party. But let's see here.

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

 

[WWGD]

Silicon Waffle said, "I find most policies and promises by Democratic members are great, popular, sound, scientifically concise. Why are there still voters for Republicans?"

I have no loyalty to the Republican party. But let's see here.

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

I am sorry, but "people believe" is a little vague. And, for one, we (implicitly) already put many priorities ahead of the preservation of life; we are willing to , and we actually make, cost-benefit analysis re the preservation of life: we are willing to put out products in the market (cars, medicins, chemicals, etc.) that may have a certain death rate, because it would be too expensive to upgrade them to lower the death rate closer to 0. We could spend millions more making, e.g., our water, our cars, etc. safer, but we are not willing to do so, because that would greatly raise the price of the items. So we do not _ in actuality_ , in practice, believe that life is sacred, that preserving life is our top priority; we are willing to cut corners and accept the price of a few extra deaths in order to have reasonably-priced products. Would you be willing to drive at, say, 25 mph max (except possibly ambulances, police, etc.) if I convinced you that doing so would greatly lower the fatality rate? Most likely not, because most of us do not, in the end , consider preserving life to be a priority, but we pump our chests when someone mentions abortion.

And , frankly, I don't think the application of the " markets(general) will regulate themselves" creed has been very successful. I don't like rules either, but a certain amount/type seems to be necessary. But, of course it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary , and there is some wiggle room there. I don't know of any real-life scenario where letting society regulate itself has resulted in outcomes beneficial to the majority.

As for Hilary, I don't know that much about Benghazi, but , even if she is responsible, it does not seem fair to judge anyone by their worse act.. I would frankly prefer an end to the Hillary Bush, Jeb Clinton scenario, I vote no for dynasties in politics.

 

[EM_Guy]

I am sorry, but "people believe" is a little vague. And, for one, we (implicitly) already put many priorities ahead of the preservation of life; we are willing to , and we actually make, cost-benefit analysis re the preservation of life: we are willing to put out products in the market (cars, medicins, chemicals, etc.) that may have a certain death rate, because it would be too expensive to upgrade them to lower the death rate closer to 0. We could spend millions more making, e.g., our water, our cars, etc. safer, but we are not willing to do so, because that would greatly raise the price of the items. So we do not _ in actuality_ , in practice, believe that life is sacred, that preserving life is our top priority; we are willing to cut corners and accept the price of a few extra deaths in order to have reasonably-priced products. Would you be willing to drive at, say, 25 mph max (except possibly ambulances, police, etc.) if I convinced you that doing so would greatly lower the fatality rate? Most likely not, because most of us do not, in the end , consider preserving life to be a priority, but we pump our chests when someone mentions abortion.

A few thoughts here:

1. We put other priorities ahead of preserving life generally because we are self-centered, sinful, unethical, wicked, ignorant, etc. To say that we are that way somehow implies that we should continue to be that way is not good. Rather, we ought to acknowledge and turn from our faults. You seem to be implying that since we are the way we are, we should continue to be the way we are.

2. Life is an optimization problem. We have limited time, limited resources, limited information. We should all do what we can to make use of our time, resources, and information to do the best with what we've got. I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convince me of. Is it that no matter how much I try, I'm going to fall short, so I should just give up and throw out all my convictions? That's like saying, "I can't have a perfect diet, so why bother paying any attention to nutrition at all?"

3. I try to major in the majors. There is corruption everywhere, and you can resolve to do your best to boycott any product that has somehow been tainted by some kind of corruption in order to establish justice. But, see point 2. Who has the time, money, resources to follow supply chains all the way through and then to resolve only to spend money on products and services that are "pure and just"? But some things are glaring and obvious.

 

[EM_Guy]

And , frankly, I don't think the application of the " markets(general) will regulate themselves" creed has been very successful. I don't like rules either, but a certain amount/type seems to be necessary. But, of course it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary , and there is some wiggle room there. I don't know of any real-life scenario where letting society regulate itself has resulted in outcomes beneficial to the majority.

I actually fully agree with this. As you say, it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary. I don't think that Clinton has the wisdom, the intelligence, the character, and the integrity to be entrusted with such vast power and authority. Rand Paul on the other hand does seem to me to have more wisdom and virtue and is therefore more worthy of trust.

 

[WWGD]

A few thoughts here:

1. We put other priorities ahead of preserving life generally because we are self-centered, sinful, unethical, wicked, ignorant, etc. To say that we are that way somehow implies that we should continue to be that way is not good. Rather, we ought to acknowledge and turn from our faults. You seem to be implying that since we are the way we are, we should continue to be the way we are.

2. Life is an optimization problem. We have limited time, limited resources, limited information. We should all do what we can to make use of our time, resources, and information to do the best with what we've got. I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convince me of. Is it that no matter how much I try, I'm going to fall short, so I should just give up and throw out all my convictions? That's like saying, "I can't have a perfect diet, so why bother paying any attention to nutrition at all?"

3. I try to major in the majors. There is corruption everywhere, and you can resolve to do your best to boycott any product that has somehow been tainted by some kind of corruption in order to establish justice. But, see point 2. Who has the time, money, resources to follow supply chains all the way through and then to resolve only to spend money on products and services that are "pure and just"? But some things are glaring and obvious.

Well, I would like to see more consistency between the actions of the anti-abortion crowd and their words (of course this standard should apply to any group, to anyone sponsoring a cause), so we can have a more honest discussion. How about paid leave for moms, dads, etc.? And , don't you think , (If I understood your point correctly) by your own reasoning --which I agree with in this case -- that, while we cannot fight everything everywhere, we should try our best

 

[EM_Guy]

As for Hilary, I don't know that much about Benghazi, but , even if she is responsible, it does not seem fair to judge anyone by their worse act.. I would frankly prefer an end to the Hillary Bush, Jeb Clinton scenario, I vote no for dynasties in politics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-officials-victims-relatives-testify/2835273/

I implore you to remember and honor the victims of the Benghazi attacks: Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Chris Stevens, and Tyrone Woods.

 

[WWGD]

I actually fully agree with this. As you say, it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary. I don't think that Clinton has the wisdom, the intelligence, the character, and the integrity to be entrusted with such vast power and authority. Rand Paul on the other hand does seem to me to have more wisdom and virtue and is therefore more worthy of trust.

We should grill each of the candidates until we find the best one available. Rand Paul seems a bit too far to the libertarian side, but I don't know his platform well-enough.

Anyway, on a different note, thanks to you, all, and to Physics Forums for a reasoned disagreement, and to PF for serving as a platform where one can have reasoned disagreements, where people can and do disagree without necessarily being disagreeable/nasty.

 

[EM_Guy]

Anyway, on a different note, thanks to you, all, and to Physics Forums for a reasoned disagreement, and to PF for serving as a platform where one can have reasoned disagreements, where people can and do disagree without necessarily being disagreeable/nasty.

Agreed! Cheers!

 

[jim hardy]

I'd like to see Barbara Bush have a third term.

 

[Evo]

I'd like to see Barbara Bush have a third term.

Yeah, but how many people know that Laura Bush, wife of George W Bush killed someone? Yeah, this has nothing to do with Hillary, except as far as we know Hillary did not personally kill anyone.

http://www.snopes.com/POLITICS/bush/laura.asp

 

[jim hardy]

Yeah, but how many people know that Laura Bush, wife of George W Bush killed someone?

<<<AH--HOOOO--GAH>>>
non-sequitur alert

 

[Evo]

<<<AH--HOOOO--GAH>>>
non-sequitur alert

Ok, we now return to the thread topic.

 

[WWGD]

I think a necessary condition for someone to do an effective job ( at any level) is having/allowing "no men/women" ( as opposed to yes man/women) in their cabinet, someone who will disagree with them when they think s/he is wrong. And the no people need to keep their guts throughout the presidency. It is a matter of going beyond stroking one's ego and having some interest in getting to the truth. But I am not holding my breath.

 

[jim hardy]

It's going to be a muddy campaign season.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/17/clinton-used-personal-email-for-sensitive-libya-negotiations-documents-show/

Documents challenge Clinton claim no classified intel on personal emails

The emails, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/06/17/proposed-quad-deal/, conflict with Clinton's statement that she did not put national security at risk by using a personal account.

 

[WWGD]

It's going to be a muddy campaign season.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/17/clinton-used-personal-email-for-sensitive-libya-negotiations-documents-show/

Interesting you mentioned non-seq's in a previous post. Notice the last two paragraphs. Specifically , Bolton suspects (my bold) the same carelessness with the emails in issue happens with a lot of the intelligence, and then goes on to conclude the problem is pervasive. How can he make a conclusion that the problem is pervasive when he is working under an assumption/suspicion that the carelessness with the given post also happens in general? A suspicion alone seems like a flimsy basis for a generalization of the problem as being pervasive. But you should watch the opposing comedy channel, MSNBC to cancel out the bias of FOX; the two clown channels cancel each other out.

 

[jim hardy]

the two clown channels cancel each other out.

that's the point.

sad state of affairs, eh ?

 

[WWGD]

that's the point.

sad state of affairs, eh ?

Yes, I think it has to see with the fact that they have to compete with 100s of other channels, with the web, etc., for viewers. So they manufacture controversies, become entertainment channels. But sad too that too many people buy into it.

 

[Czcibor]

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

That's an area that I more or less agree with you. (except this justification "people believe")

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

What about people who dislike putting in politics deontological ethics (regardless whether in right wing or left wing version) and prefer consequentialism?

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

Screw up within reasonable bounds. (Yes, I seriously mean that. Now everyone is wise to know that more security guards had to been put there.)

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

Maybe it somehow related to the level of sabotage (I mean especially "gov shutdown" but other freaks like birthers are also not helpful) caused by Tea Party? I mean no disliked because of views as such but more because of being quite destructive opposition? At least for me, who so far voted in my country for right wing parties, it was an eye opening.

 

[EM_Guy]

That's an area that I more or less agree with you. (except this justification "people believe")

Stating that people believe this was simply a statement of fact - not a justification. The question was asked (in so many words) why anyone votes Republican. I was answering the question.

What about people who dislike putting in politics deontological ethics (regardless whether in right wing or left wing version) and prefer consequentialism?

I'm not sure that I completely understand you here. But I would suggest that the entire purpose of government is to restrain wicked behavior and to reward good behavior. If men governed themselves well, there would be no need for government. It is because men "dislike" (or to put it more strongly, because men refuse) to govern themselves that government is needed.

But I'm not sure what point you are making here. Do you think that rights should be defined in terms that maximize liberty, or do you think that rights should be defined in terms that would oblige all of us to carry each others' burdens?

To be clear, some rights do require all of us to take positive action - such as the right to trial-by-jury. That right requires all of us to make sacrifices so that we can have courthouses, judges, so that jurors can be compensated, etc., etc. But for the most part, I think people should pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. I don't believe that we have any intrinsic right to demand sacrifices from our neighbors (aside from some minimal sacrifices that are necessary to secure some basic and fundamental rights - trial-by-jury for example).

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure that I completely understand you here. But I would suggest that the entire purpose of government is to restrain wicked behavior and to reward good behavior. If men governed themselves well, there would be no need for government. It is because men "dislike" (or to put it more strongly, because men refuse) to govern themselves that government is needed.

But I'm not sure what point you are making here. Do you think that rights should be defined in terms that maximize liberty, or do you think that rights should be defined in terms that would oblige all of us to carry each others' burdens?

To be clear, some rights do require all of us to take positive action - such as the right to trial-by-jury. That right requires all of us to make sacrifices so that we can have courthouses, judges, so that jurors can be compensated, etc., etc. But for the most part, I think people should pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. I don't believe that we have any intrinsic right to demand sacrifices from our neighbors (aside from some minimal sacrifices that are necessary to secure some basic and fundamental rights - trial-by-jury for example).

Neither of points. Perceiving it as matter of "rights" is something I used to do maybe ten years ago. (BTW: at that time I preferred negative rights) Now I consider both approach as flawed. Too much speaking about "rights", too little speaking about "making everything work" (that's in plain words deontological ethics vs. consequentialism). So for example (on US politics) when Republicans make gov shut down or cut taxes and raised spending in the same time that I consider as total disaster. (when Obama's administration even fails to make their healthcare program a working web page work or blocks Kingston pipeline that I consider as disaster too, just one degree of magnitude lower). I may explain you it on more scenic examples outside of the US.

Actually trial by jury I consider as weird, but mostly harmless Anglo-Saxon tradition. But understand your intended point.