News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[TurtleMeister]

I completely agree and I thought that's what I said, I don't approve of some, or even many of the things Hillary's done, but if it comes to Trump or Hillary as president, I have to go with Hillary. Nothing says she can't be impeached later or charges pressed later, but at least we keep Trump out of office.

I came across this FiveThirdyEight page that shows how women will keep Trump out of office.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/
Those maps are quite an eye opener.

 

[Evo]

US democracy has survived some less than mediocre presidents: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanin, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Taft, Harding and Hoover by general consensus. I'll leave history to judge others. We survived them all. Hillary may mess up, but I think we will still survive as a democracy. I don't feel that way about Trump.

I know, this is the first time in my life that I am truly scared. I've never been scared before. Maybe they weren't my first choice, but I wasn't worried that they might not have both oars in the water.

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc do you realize that if Clinton isn't elected, Trump will become President? Is that what you want? Do you think Trump is more qualified and a better person for President than Clinton? I'm just curious. Clinton is far from perfect, but when it comes to running the country, she is by far the only one of the two that I would allow in the Oval office. Because this isn't about who you like, it's about who can run the country.

If I only had a choice between Clinton and Trump, I'd choose Clinton, who is certainly more capable than Trump. Trump is simply inappropriate. In my opinion, Trump would be undermine national and global security; Clinton while not perfect is less of a risk.

However, I'm disappointed in the fact that most of the nation has to choose between the two of them. Sanders was a little to far out for my taste, and of all the candidates this cycle, I would prefer Kasich. I currently reside in a region that is predominantly republican, but the state has a democratic majority heavily weighted in major urban areas. I expect that Clinton will win the state. Based on that, I wrote in a candidate, because I want to encourage independents to run for office as a third alternative to either of the two major parties.

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

 

[Evo]

If I only had a choice between Clinton and Trump, I'd choose Clinton, who is certainly more capable than Trump. Trump is simply inappropriate.

However, I'm disappointed in the fact that most of the nation has to choose between the two of them. Sanders was a little to far out for my taste, and of all the candidates this cycle, I would prefer Kasich. I currently reside in a region that is predominantly republican, but the state has a democratic majority heavily weighted in urban major urban areas. I expect that Clinton will win the state. Based on that, I wrote in a candidate, because I want to encourage independents to run for office as a third alternative to either of the two major parties.

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

Voting for an independent is voting for Trump. It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump. My dad used to vote for independents. You know George Wallace? He was an independant. He was shot, an assasination attempt that failed. That's how much history pays attention to independants. Of course he was a racist, biggot, can't say what else I think of him.

Is Donald Trump A Modern-Day George Wallace?

Wallace allies and family see parallels today in Trump.

"It's just a replay," Charlie Snider, one of Wallace's most trusted political aides, told NPR. "We're looking at a modern-day George Wallace."

Snider is a Trump supporter. Wallace's daughter, a Democrat, hears it, too, but in a different way.

"Trump and my father say out loud what people are thinking but don't have the courage to say," Peggy Wallace Kennedy told NPR. Wallace Kennedy was 18 when she was on the campaign trail with her father in 1968. She believes Trump is exploiting voters' worst instincts, the way her late father once did.

"They both were able to adopt the notion that fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government," she said.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475172438/donald-trump-and-george-wallace-riding-the-rage

 

[Astronuc]

It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump.

I'm making a statement with my vote. I know many republicans who won't vote for Trump, and some can't vote for Clinton, but I expect vote for Clinton will probably be twice those for Trump.

I think the nation needs to stop with 'the lesser of two evils' approach and encourage more capable folks with integrity. In the long term, the nation will note fare well on the current trajectory.

Something to consider beyond Nov 8 -
Natasha Trethewey and Eboo Patel — How to Live Beyond This Election
http://www.onbeing.org/program/natasha-trethewey-and-eboo-patel-how-to-live-beyond-this-election/9010

 

[Evo]

I'm making a statement with my vote. I know many republicans who won't vote for Trump, and some can't vote for Clinton, but I expect vote for Clinton will probably be twice those for Trump.

I think the nation needs to stop with the lesser of two evils and encourage more capable folks with integrity. In the long term, the nation will note fare well on the current trajectory.

Independents are quickly forgotten, no one notices.

Scary though, how Trump seems to be mirroring Wallace.

 

[Astronuc]

Independents are quickly forgotten, no one notices.

I notice independents, and I wrote my self in for county commissioner as an independent. Got to start somewhere.

Actually, Sanders is an independent from Vermont, although he does caucus with the democrats.

I voted for an independent for Senator, and a mix of democrats and republicans for state and local offices.

 

[BillTre]

US democracy has survived some less than mediocre presidents: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanin, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Taft, Harding and Hoover by general consensus.

Unfortunately, Buchanin helped get the Civil War started, the most costly in our history>

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

You might find this interesting, a scenario of how McMullin might win the presidency. It's something like this: McMulliin wins Utah, neither Trump nor Clinton get enough electoral votes to become president. Not a likely outcome, but possible. Determining the next President is then determined by a vote in the House of Representatives. They can only vote for people who have won electoral votes. Enough of them (Republican House) don't like Trump that McMullin gets picked.

 

[Student100]

Voting for an independent is voting for Trump. It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump. My dad used to vote for independents. You know George Wallace? He was an independant. He was shot, an assasination attempt that failed. That's how much history pays attention to independants. Of course he was a racist, biggot, can't say what else I think of him.

It isn't voting for Trump, it neither helps nor hinders Hillary (or Trump when people try to make the same argument for him).

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately, Buchanin helped get the Civil War started, the most costly in our history>You might find this interesting, a scenario of how McMullin might win the presidency. It's something like this: McMulliin wins Utah, neither Trump nor Clinton get enough electoral votes to become president. Not a likely outcome, but possible. Determining the next President is then determined by a vote in the House of Representatives. They can only vote for people who have won electoral votes. Enough of them (Republican House) don't like Trump that McMullin gets picked.

He's against women's and gay right's, let's hope not.

 

[jim hardy]

Hillary may mess up, but I think we will still survive as a democracy.

That's what i said to my Dad about Reagan.
I might say it now too if we didn't have three supreme court justices born in the 1930's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I've said this before, I'm voting for originalists to the Supreme Court.

 

[OmCheeto]

Just finished watching Frontline's: The Choice 2016 [2 hours long!]

Interesting historical background on Trump & Clinton.
I have to admit, the only thing I knew about Trump, before now, was that he had bad hair.

There's also a transcript.

 

[Borg]

Just finished watching Frontline's: The Choice 2016 [2 hours long!]

Interesting historical background on Trump & Clinton.
I have to admit, the only thing I knew about Trump, before now, was that he had bad hair.

There's also a transcript.

I watched that a few weeks ago. It was interesting to see how they became the way that they are today.

 

[russ_watters]

Voting for an independent is voting for Trump.

A popular slogan, but mathematically false. When a person votes for Trump instead of Hillary or Hillary instead of Trump, it is a swing of *2* votes between them. When one votes for a 3rd party it is a swing of *1* vote between the two leaders. In my case, for example, I've never voted for anyone but a Republican for President, so you could fairly say my vote "should" be Trump's. So my vote for an independent or write-in is a 1 vote reduction for Trump without the corresponding expected 1 vote gain for Hillary.

A person staying home on election day does the same thing, but I don't like it because there is no visibility of who chose to stay home for principle vs who chose to stay home for apathy.

It is meaningless...
[separate post]
Independents are quickly forgotten, no one notices.

I think the last sentence in my first paragraph above is the perfect statement for me. If I vote for Hillary it sends a bad message because it tells her, in the only way I meaningly have to tell her anything, that I support her. And I don't. People certainly remember Ross Perot and the fact that Clinton never earned a majority of the popular vote. I think it is important for Clinton's mandate once elected (and I expect she will be) that she not receive a majority either. That also would give me hope that she'd be likely to only be a one-termer.

I also expect Micky Mouse to have a strong showing this year, and I think it would be fitting for one cartoon character to take votes from another. But he's a little too anti-semitic for my taste.

 

[Bystander]

I also expect Micky Mouse to have a strong showing this year,

... and I ... abstained this year on POTUS ... first abstention since '68 ... I really do think WH should be left vacant this go around.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

That wasn't apparent yesterday, you are correct, I see that has just come out. Aparently she found out through the news after her plane landed. So, that still leaves Comey with going against the DOJ, his actions are still inappropriate.

I heard today that he has decided not to release his income taxes at all. What is he hiding? That really concerns me.

Comey's actions were inappropriate when he failed to recommend indictment, knowing full well she broke the law.

Of what concern is a candidate's personal taxes? While other presidents have chosen to release their tax returns, they are not required to. Some of us still believe in privacy.

 

[OmCheeto]

I watched that a few weeks ago. It was interesting to see how they became the way that they are today.

Evo's post about Trump being a modern day Wallace, had me go back and research the McCarthy hearings, as Trump's one time lawyer, Roy Cohn, was the chief legal council in the hearings.

Wow...

The McCarthy hearings took place before I was born, so all I knew about them, was that it was a commie witch hunt. But I discovered, that there was more to it, than just commies.

The similarities between those hearings, and this election, had me both laughing and crying, at the same time.

Key words, in both cases:
"sex, lies, FBI, State Department, gavel-to-gavel live television coverage, sparred over the handling of secret files, ..."

About the only things that have changed, are the names, and what type witch we are now hunting.

 

[Orodruin]

Since PF is a science forum, I think it is worthwhile to have a reality check on the candidates' views on science. Luckily, Scientific American has provided one:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

The bottom line:

TOTALS
Clinton: 64

Trump: 7

Johnson: 30

Stein: 44

Out of 19 questions ranked 0 to 5, Trump gets a grand total of 7. I think we can safely say that anti-scientific is just the first name. Neither Clinton's or the others' scores are great, but Trump's is just apalling across the board.

Edit: Just to pick directly from the SA article, Trump scores 0 out of 5 in the following categories:

• Climate change
• Biodiversity
• Energy
• Education
• Public health
• Water
• Food
• Global challenges
• Regulations
• Opioids
• Ocean health
• Scientific integrity

 

[russ_watters]

Since PF is a science forum, I think it is worthwhile to have a reality check on the candidates' views on science. Luckily, Scientific American has provided one:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

The bottom line:

Out of 19 questions ranked 0 to 5, Trump gets a grand total of 7. I think we can safely say that anti-scientific is just the first name. Neither Clinton's or the others' scores are great, but Trump's is just apalling across the board.

From the first one for Trump:

His answer to this question contradicts responses to three other questions in the survey, however, in which he references "limited" financial resources, which would presumably prevent following through on any of these ideas.

Given a contradiction, always assume the worst of Trump, of course!

Clinton on Climate change and energy:

[Climate Change]Clinton acknowledges that "climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time." She outlines a plan "to generate half of our electricity from clean sources," to cut "energy waste" by a third and to "reduce American oil consumption by a third" over the next 10 years. To achieve these goals she plans to "implement and build on" current "pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives." Clinton loses a point for not saying where she will find the money to pay for such initiatives.
[similar answer on energy, shorter timeframe:]
"rejects the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment, and our security." She hopes to "generate half of our electricity from clean sources" and install "half a billion solar panels" by the end of her first term.

In 10 years! 4 years!? Utter nonsense empty promise: 9/10, A for effort!

Any answer on energy or climate change that doesn't include the word "nuclear" or has a time horizon of less than 30 years for a major undertaking of any sort is just a meaningless wishful thinking typical campaign promise.

Dont get me wrong, id probably rank hillaty higher than Trump, but SA let's their bias rule their scoring.

 

[Orodruin]

Dont get me wrong, id probably rank hillaty higher than Trump, but SA let's their bias rule their scoring.

Are you saying that you do not let your own bias rule yours?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Dont get me wrong, id probably rank hillaty higher than Trump, but SA let's their bias rule their scoring.

Why do you call Scientific American "biased"? That by itself seems a bit biased to me.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why do you call Scientific American "biased"? That by itself seems a bit biased to me.

To make the claim one would have to explore the affiliations and missions of Nature Publishing Group, Editor Mariette DiChristina and direct writers Christine Gorman, Ryan F. Mandelbaum.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you call Scientific American "biased"? That by itself seems a bit biased to me.

I gave the explanation/analysis in the post.
[edit]
It is interesting to me that I received two negative responses to a secondary extension of my conclusion without even any reference to the conclusion itself (my point was the analysis/scoring was bad), much less any critique of my analysis that led to it. What am I supposed to judge from that?!

 

[russ_watters]

To make the claim one would have to explore the affiliations and missions of Nature Publishing Group, Editor Mariette DiChristina and direct writers Christine Gorman, Ryan F. Mandelbaum.

You can approach the question based on the input or the output. Using the input (who did the work) can be useful but gets messy. Judging the output on its own merit (which is what I did) is more direct.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying that you do not let your own bias rule yours?

Everyone is affected by their own biases in some non-zero way, including you, me* and SA. One would hope a scientific source like SA would do better based on a scientific worldview that should be good at minimizing bias, but if I had to guess, I'd say that when dealing with non-quantitative judgements rather than hard data, they get out of their normal approach and are not as good at making objective judgements.

But do you have any comment on the actual analysis I gave? I'll be clear/succinct about the contradiction issue:
Given two contradicting answers to similar questions (say, you are grading a paper or test), do you:
A. Judge each answer for what it is.
A2. ...and maybe deduct an additional point for the contradiction.
B. Assume the positive answer for both and give a good score for both.
C. Assume a negative answer for both and award a bad score even for the good answer.

P.S.
*And by the way, based on the fact that I don't run from "gotcha" questions about my own bias, I do think that makes me better at recognizing and therefore dealing with my own bias than most.

P.P.S., Given the fact that I am strongly anti-Hillary and anti-Trump, what do you think is driving my bias in this analysis?

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Why do you call Scientific American "biased"? That by itself seems a bit biased to me.

Every subjective viewpoint is biased.

 

[Orodruin]

Everyone is affected by their own biases in some non-zero way, including you, me* and SA.

Well, this much is obvious and I have never claimed otherwise. Any scientifically inclined person knows this. Yes, I know that I am biased and that we are all biased by the sources that we have selected to get input from. Of course knowing about your bias is the first step in countering it, but it is still there. However, based on the coverage we have seen in Europe, I think most Europeans are baffled by the fact that Trump is still in the running. Clinton is not ideal and there are issues that would have cost her the election in a normal year. However, judging by what I see from Trump, what he says is often completely incoherent and not related to a question he is asked - far more so than any politician I have seen (and that is being said having a Spanish wife so I have heard quite a lot of awful stuff about Spanish politicians lately). From what I see, Clinton is far from ideal, but Trump is inherently unfit for office.

P.P.S., Given the fact that I am strongly anti-Hillary and anti-Trump, what do you think is driving my bias in this analysis?

This is something that have not been clear to me in your argumentation. From the way you have argued previously, I would have deduced you as strongly supporting Trump. So let me just ask you one question: If you had to pick one of them to govern, which one would you pick? - or in other words - Who do you find the lesser of two evils?
This is a very real scenario, since I do not think anyone seriously believes that there will be an electoral college deadlock or a different candidate with any reasonable chance even if McMullin might win Utah.

 

[gleem]

In the October issue of "Physics Today" the AIP monthly magazine there is a comparison of Clinton's and Trumps stands on science. The article is not freely viewable on the Internet so I will try to summarize it as best I can. (Note: I have an unfavorable view of a Trump presidency and and have accepted Clinton as the lesser of two evils).

Trump's position on science policy is speculative because of his lack of coherent public statements. Clinton has made available significant information on her science policies on her website. Physics Today could not obtain an interview with either of Trump's or Clinton's advisors on science. Physics Today used published information and presented representative views of the candidates. They acknowledged that Trumps gave more general and terse responses to the 20 Science and Technology questions posed by ScienceDebate.org a coalition of 56 of scientific societies universities and other non profits.

Bob Walker a lobbyist and former Republican chairman of the House Science Committee noted that Trump has a small staff dedicated to a science agenda and not doing much work on it. Clinton on the other hand has a staff of a couple of hundred some with S&T backgrounds working on transition.

The article quoted several notable persons who have negative comments on Trump's view of science but noting Trump hasn't said much on the topic.

The article pointed out that there is bipartisan support in Congress for science but programs may be hindered by budget concerns. Trump's fiscal plan seems like it would severally limit funding of discretionary programs like scientific research. Clinton's on the other hand does not advocate policies that would reduce the federal budget. However Dems favor applied research so there is some concerns that the money will go into areas that favor a political agenda.

The article discusses candidates views on Climate Change, Energy , R&D and NASA. I am pretty sure we all know where they stand on climate change so I will not beat this dead cat.

On Energy

Clinton has a strong program on renewable energy. She want 140 GW of solar power by 2021 while the Solar Energy Industries Assoc. expects 100 GW. She expects a 10 fold increase in solar, wind, and hydro power in the next 10 years. She supports R&D for energy storage, advanced nuclear technology and carbon capture and storage. She proposes a "Clean Energy Challenge" a $60B 10year program of state and local grants and incentives for deploying clean energy. She supports advance nuclear power and work to ensure that nuclear power is "appropriately valued".

Trumps energy plan sees energy independence through increased drilling and saving the declining coal industry. He would eliminate unnecessary or outdated regulations that restrict new drilling technologies. The article notes his disdain of renewable energy and energy efficiency by his statements that wind farms are "disgusting looking" and "bad for people health" and that th new environmentally friendly light bulbs "cause cancer". However in Trump fashion he also says that energy independence also requires exploring every possible energy source including solar, wind, nuclear and biofuels.

On R&D and NASA

Clinton notes that as a percent of GDP that federal spending is lower today than before the launch of Sputnik 1 and will increase the research budget for NSF, DOE, DARPA. She supports a strong space exploration, science and technology to protect our security and protect our planet and expand our robotic presence in the solar system. She did not mention NASA explicitly. She will boost the neglected NIH budget especially for Alzheimer research and Biden's "moonshot" cancer initiative.

Trump says he supports the federal government's encouragement and support of innovation in space exploration and investment in R&D in academia and investing in science, engineering, health care, regardless of budget pressures. He noted that space exploration will "bring millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment to this country". Although he supports space exploration he stated in NH in August that he wants to rebuild the US infrastructure first.

Clinton seems to have a plan which seems ambitious and probably not as fundable as necessary to accomplish her promises. She does not mention infrastructure issues and leaves us to guess how they will be dealt with or compete with her science programs. So I will not hold my breath to see what will be implemented if she is elected. Trump on the other hand seems not to have any plan on science and because of contradictory statements on various issues leaves me concerned about his presidency if elected.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, this much is obvious and I have never claimed otherwise. Any scientifically inclined person knows this.

...But you still had to ask me.

However, based on the coverage we have seen in Europe, I think most Europeans are baffled by the fact that Trump is still in the running...

I largely agree with that paragraph (and wrongly predicted his demise multiple times during the primary race), but that is largely irrelevant to the current discussion.

This is something that have not been clear to me in your argumentation. From the way you have argued previously, I would have deduced you as strongly supporting Trump.

That's disappointing since I try to say as often as I can (including twice in our current exchange plus a detailed description of my voting dillema/logic in the post at the top of this page of the discussion). I guess I should just put it in my signature.

So let me just ask you one question: If you had to pick one of them to govern, which one would you pick? - or in other words - Who do you find the lesser of two evils?

If the ballot only had two choices and no write-in ability, I'd probably leave it empty. If someone held a gun to my head and made me chose one button or the other, I'd probably waver a bit before pressing Hillary's.

My actual rating of Hillary is: Democratic business as usual, but substantially worse than average character (She doesn't even stack up well against her husband on character!).

My actual rating of Trump is: cartoon character, come to life. While I see no particular danger from him (though that may be partly because he's so incoherent) and would probably enjoy the show if he won, he isn't the type of person who should be President.

This is a very real scenario, since I do not think anyone seriously believes that there will be an electoral college deadlock or a different candidate with any reasonable chance even if McMullin might win Utah.

I don't understand: what is a real scenario? The idea of only having two choices? No it isn't: there are 3rd party candidates on the ballot in my state and I can even write-in someone if I want (as I said above, I'm still considering it).

 

[Orodruin]

I don't understand: what is a real scenario? The idea of only having two choices? No it isn't: there are 3rd party candidates on the ballot in my state and I can even write-in someone if I want (as I said above, I'm still considering it).

Well, you are not forced to pick a candidate but also have the choice of letting others decide for you (which is your democratic right). However, in the end we both know that barring some very unlikely scenarios, Clinton or Trump will be president in january. Your vote will not matter more than if you chose not to vote apart from making a democratic statement (which again is fine by me). How you chose to exercise your democratic rights is up to you. All I am saying is that while I can understand your reasoning, I would have come to a different personal conclusion.