News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[russ_watters]

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).

Well, one might suggest that voting for any candidate besides the eventual winner is letting "others decide for you", but others might suggest that either such view is decidedly anti-democratic!

However, in the end we both know that barring some very unlikely scenarios, Clinton or Trump will be president in january.

Of course! I just didn't understand your language when you pointed to an "very real scenario" that actually wasn't real at all.

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.

Fair enoug. And yes, I went through the actual math of the various chocies above/a couple of days ago: Since I'm a life-long Republican, a vote for Hillary instead of Trump would be a swing of two votes between them whereas a vote for a third party or write-in instead of Trump is a swing of one vote between Trump and Hillary.

Of course, it is also a swing of two votes against Trump and one vote against Hillary, so in that way, it has a bigger impact! See, voting for a write-in or 3rd party sends a totally different message than the choice of Hillary vs Trump, so the math is totally different as well, if you consider that message.

 

[Orodruin]

Of course, it is also a swing of two votes against Trump and one vote against Hillary, so in that way, it has a bigger impact!

While this may be true in actual number of votes, I do not think that using number of votes accurately describes the utility value of the vote. Of course, this depends on how you assign your value function, which is ultimatelt a subjective choice. In my choice of value function, based on a winner takes it all system, I would essentially only consider the difference between the winner and runner up as this is what matters in the end. With such a value function, voting for a third-party or independent candidate would have the same value change as not voting.

 

[russ_watters]

While this may be true in actual number of votes, I do not think that using number of votes accurately describes the utility value of the vote. Of course, this depends on how you assign your value function, which is ultimatelt a subjective choice. In my choice of value function, based on a winner takes it all system, I would essentially only consider the difference between the winner and runner up as this is what matters in the end. With such a value function, voting for a third-party or independent candidate would have the same value change as not voting.

We are finally exactly in agreement about something: yes, a person's choice of value function is personal/subjective.

I do have a question though: Do you have a threshold of 3rd party support or even uniform distaste for the two leading candidates (or a combination of the two) where you might shift toward the value function I favor in this election?

In the extreme case, you might be the deciding voter between three candidates at roughly 33% of the vote...and, of course, you wouldn't know that on your way into the voting booth (you would only know the race is close). Would you still vote for a major party candidate even if you preferred the 3rd party candidate and held the swing vote? If no, what is the threshold of 3rd party support that might lead you to change your value function? 10%? 20%? 25%? Or does it also depend on the depth of your distaste for the other candidates?

 

[Orodruin]

Do you have a threshold of 3rd party support or even uniform distaste for the two leading candidates (or a combination of the two) where you might shift toward the value function I favor in this election?

The value function I proposed is my zeroth order approximation. I have not given it much thought on top of that as the elections I vote in do not assign parliamentary seats in the same way as yours do. I would agree that your value function may prove a good approximation (with appropriate weights to all candidates) in a close three-way race. I would probably go for a soft threshold rather than a hard one.

Or does it also depend on the depth of your distaste for the other candidates?

Certainly my tastes and distates for the candidates should enter into the value function, but again I have not given it much more further thought for the same reasons as stated above.

 

[vela]

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

When I read the article, my first thought was it was biased. Scientists are really just another special interest group looking for their cut of the political pie, so it's not surprising that Hillary's tendency to see government as the solution to many problems is going to win her some points. There's also an underlying assumption in some questions that the government has a role in solving some problems that candidates like Gary Johnson simply don't accept as valid.

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 think it baffles many US citizens too. That said, I can understand why Trump is still in the running. In my opinion, there's a very justified impression that the political class has grown completely self-serving. If its members breaks the law, they get away with it. Clapper blatantly lying to Congress about widespread surveillance yet not going to jail, Comey giving Hillary a pass on the e-mail scandal (well, at least until last Friday), no one from Wall Street going to jail for almost destroying the economy, etc. The Iraq War is seen now as a colossal mistake, sold to the public with lies, yet no one has taken responsibility for it. On the flip side, the homeowner who took out that ill-advised mortgage didn't get help from Washington while Congress made sure the bank who sold that same risky mortgage was supplied with billions of dollars to keep from failing. Both Sanders and Trump had success because of this frustration with the people in power, both Republican and Democratic.

Clinton is not ideal and there are issues that would have cost her the election in a normal year…. From what I see, Clinton is far from ideal, but Trump is inherently unfit for office.

It struck me a while ago that Clinton and Trump seem to enable each other. Trump is only succeeding because Clinton represents exactly what many Americans can't stand about the current political system; Clinton meanwhile hasn't crashed and burned like she might have in other years because Trump is a nut job. It's pretty common to hear that you should vote for Clinton because we can't risk a Trump presidency, not because Clinton is a great candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

There's also an underlying assumption in some questions that the government has a role in solving some problems that candidates like Gary Johnson simply don't accept as valid.

I noticed the 2/5 score for Johnson on climate change. Unfortunately, I can't read their article they link as a source for why the market alone can't solve the problem, so I don't know the specifics of their tack (how much of the market can be harnessed?), but there is little doubt that the primary cause of the US's remarkable carbon emission reduction to date was market driven, not government regulation driven; it was the rise of fracking for natural gas. Sure, the carbon reduction was an accidental side-effect, but it is still dismaying that more good came from an accidental expansion of a greenhouse gas emitter than all of the government's concerted efforts at promoting "green" energy and speaks to his point of the ineffectiveness and special-interest driven nature of government efforts, which is the premise of his point.

 

[russ_watters]

The value function I proposed is my zeroth order approximation. I have not given it much thought on top of that as the elections I vote in do not assign parliamentary seats in the same way as yours do. I would agree that your value function may prove a good approximation (with appropriate weights to all candidates) in a close three-way race. I would probably go for a soft threshold rather than a hard one.

Certainly my tastes and distates for the candidates should enter into the value function, but again I have not given it much more further thought for the same reasons as stated above.

Fair enough. It appears to me that our thought process isn't actually that dissimilar, we just place different values on the input "values" based on our values/judgement.

For example, I voted for Ted Cruz instead of Kasich against Trump in the primary based on the same chosen value function you are applying to the general election (at that point, Kasich had no chance of winning, but Cruz still did).

But in the general election, my distaste for Hillary is too high and the ratio of my distaste for Trump vs my distaste for Hillary is too low for me to use your value function. Or if we combine the equations and simplify by cancelling out the common denominator (Trump), my distaste for Hillary is greater than my distaste for Cruz; enough greater to trigger a 3rd party vote in the general election.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Isn't there more at stake here than just the character and personality of the candidates? @russ_watters: If forced to choose you would choose Clinton over Trump? Judging from your previous posts, I am surprised by this. Are you really willing to settle for Clinton's position on the issues and her supreme court picks over Trump's?

 

[Evo]

Fair enough. It appears to me that our thought process isn't actually that dissimilar, we just place different values on the input "values" based on our values/judgement.

For example, I voted for Ted Cruz instead of Kasich against Trump in the primary based on the same chosen value function you are applying to the general election (at that point, Kasich had no chance of winning, but Cruz still did).

But in the general election, my distaste for Hillary is too high and the ratio of my distaste for Trump vs my distaste for Hillary is too low for me to use your value function. Or if we combine the equations and simplify by cancelling out the common denominator (Trump), my distaste for Hillary is greater than my distaste for Cruz; enough greater to trigger a 3rd party vote in the general election.

Strange, my thinking is who is best for the country despite of how much I like or dislike them. The answer is Clinton. I don't have to like someone to know that they are more competent. The Presidency isn't a popularity contest, this isn't voting for prom King or Queen, but listening to people's reasons for voting, I'd think this was high school. It's so disappointing.

 

[Student100]

Strange, my thinking is who is best for the country despite of how much I like or dislike them? The answer is Clinton. I don't have to like someone to know that they are more competent.

Is Clinton really the best for the country? I guess that would depend on whether you consider the status quo a viable model for long term success. Many don't, many middle class families have disappeared, wages are stagnate, the economy is puttering along. Not exactly hard to see why people are angry or skeptical at politicians in general.

Clinton isn't exactly selling herself as a candidate of "hope and change."

 

[Evo]

Is Clinton really the best for the country? I guess that would depend on whether you consider the status quo a viable model for long term success. Many don't, many middle class families have disappeared, wages are stagnate, the economy is puttering along. Not exactly hard to see why people are angry or skeptical at politicians in general.

Clinton isn't exactly selling herself as a candidate of "hope and change."

Yes, she is best for the country, and the people that are best at judging that have said so, and that's been posted in the previous thread already, and no I don't have time to dig up all of the endorsements right now, but I probably should because it would be a real eye opener. Angry people aren't the best judges of who is capable.

Here is a current one. Colin Powell.

Former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday he'll vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a high-profile snub of his party's standard-bearer, Donald Trump.

Hacked emails released in September showed Powell strongly condemning Trump, labeling him a "national disgrace and an international pariah."
In one email dated August 3, Powell wrote, "Trump is nuts. Everybody wants me to speak out, but I will pick the time and place for maximum effect like I did in 2008 and 2012. Right now, Trump is his worst own enemy."

Clinton has earned the support of other high-profile Republicans, including former Sen. Larry Pressler, Sally Bradshaw (who was a senior adviser on Jeb Bush's campaign) and Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman and ex-Reagan political director Frank Lavin.
And according to sources, George H.W. Bush said he will vote for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-endorsement/

 

[vela]

Is Clinton really the best for the country? I guess that would depend on whether you consider the status quo a viable model for long term success.

Not really. If I have to choose between the two, Trump is a non-starter because he's a narcissist and pathological liar. Would I like to see significant change from the status quo? Yes, but not with Trump at the helm.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Trump is a non-starter because he's a narcissist and pathological liar

The same can't be said for Hillary?

 

[Bystander]

The same can't be said for Hillary?

DoubleTriple "like."

 

[Evo]

The same can't be said for Hillary?

But Hillary has the competency and qualifications to be President. There is the difference. Oh, not nuts, many people refer to Trump as nuts.

70 Nobel Laureates Endorse Hillary Clinton

A group of the world’s leading experts in science, medicine and economics threw their support behind Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, endorsing the Democratic presidential candidate and arguing that her election is crucial for safeguarding freedom and preserving a constitutional government.

The forceful endorsement came in a http://www.nobellaureatesforclinton.us/ signed by 70 Nobel laureates hailing from a variety of fields and making the case that Mrs. Clinton is the candidate who best understands the importance of investing in science and technology at a time when the world faces challenges on several fronts. The letter made no mention of Donald J. Trump, but it suggested that policies that show a lack of appreciation of scientific knowledge could damage America’s prestige and national security.

“We need a president who will support and advance policies that will enable science and technology to flourish in our country and to provide the basis of important policy decisions,” they wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/70-nobel-laureates-endorse-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

 

[vela]

The same can't be said for Hillary?

No, I don't think so. Even if I were to stipulate that Hillary is a narcissist and a pathological liar, Trump exhibits those traits to a much greater degree. It's not even close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

 

[jim hardy]

Trump is a non-starter because he's a narcissist and pathological liar.

I think such assertions should be based on something.

This was a very fair and insightful look into both of them.

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 won't go off on a pop-psy tangent. Just saying you should look to their early childhoods. That piece touches on them briefly. Who you are is set by age five.

Look up their parents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Howell_Rodham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_E._Rodham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump
articles about his Mom are not so easy to find.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother
(edited to fix malformed link )
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tish-immigrant-wife-businessman-revealed.html old jim

 

[russ_watters]

Strange, my thinking is who is best for the country despite of how much I like or dislike them.

Don't be glib, Evo; you know this isn't simply a personal like/dislike issue but what a like/dislike on relevant character traits means for the country. If I voted based on who I'd like to have a beer with, Obama would be my favorite recent President!

Yes, she is best for the country, and the people that are best at judging that have said so, and that's been posted in the previous thread already, and no I don't have time to dig up all of the endorsements right now, but I probably should because it would be a real eye opener. Angry people aren't the best judges of who is capable.

LOL, back to the idea that people should be told what to do instead of allowed to choose themselves. I'm glad we don't live in the country you describe and you probably should be too, otherwise the "Obamamaniacs" wouldn't have been allowed to vote!

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't there more at stake here than just the character and personality of the candidates? @russ_watters: If forced to choose you would choose Clinton over Trump? Judging from your previous posts, I am surprised by this. Are you really willing to settle for Clinton's position on the issues and her supreme court picks over Trump's?

I didn't actually say "character" there, I just said "distaste". There are a lot of components of that, and character is just one. But unfortunately, in an election that hasn't been much about the issues, I therefore haven't discussed the issues much.

Yes, your points do concern me. It's a tough call, choosing between someone I'm relatively sure would make the "wrong" decisions and someone who I don't trust to make any decisions at all.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Yes, she is best for the country, and the people that are best at judging that have said so, and that's been posted in the previous thread already, and no I don't have time to dig up all of the endorsements right now, but I probably should because it would be a real eye opener. Angry people aren't the best judges of who is capable.

This is America, no person's opinion is more valuable than another in politics. The ballot does not care if you are well informed or not.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I don't think so. Even if I were to stipulate that Hillary is a narcissist and a pathological liar, Trump exhibits those traits to a much greater degree. It's not even close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

I don't think it is quite that simple, that you can score them one for one. Trump's lies are thoughtless, spur of the moment acts, which is why the volume of them is so high. Hillary's are carefully planned(by committee!) and executed. That makes her individual lies worse, imo. Worse enough to flip the score? I don't know - bloody mess we're in!

 

[Kevin McHugh]

As I replied in another thread, I'm just peeved I have to chose between a power hungry, lying narcissist, and a mysogonistic, xenophobic, lying narcissist. However, IMO, I'll vote for the candidate that seems to like the Constitution more.

 

[NTL2009]

Yes, she is best for the country, .../

Strange, my thinking is who is best for the country despite of how much I like or dislike them. The answer is Clinton. ...

"She is best..."? "The answer is Clinton..."? You mean "Evo thinks she is...", and " Evo feels the answer is..." don't you? Those are your opinions, and per your opening post:

General
1) Politeness and respect for others is essential
2) Show reasonable effort to provide sources for any factual claims
3) Clearly state an opinion as such and not asserted as fact

If you want to assert them as fact, then provide sources (but that would be this entire thread!).

 

[NTL2009]

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. ...

I don't think this says anything at all about HRC's stance on science. I think it merely represents what her staff has told her plays well towards getting electoral votes. Like most politicians.

Maybe it's my personal bias at play, but SA's scoring does look biased to me. Look at the Mental Health section. HRC gets 3/5, DJT gets 1/5?

Clinton offers many "whats" but fewer "hows," including funding or which agencies she will call upon.

and

But he offers no specifics, saying "this entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution must be developed." His complete lack of specifics indicates that he has not given the subject much thought.

Looks to me like very similar in lack of specifics, but one gets 1/5, the other 3/5?

And "this entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution must be developed." sounds like a very scientific, logical approach.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Evo thinks

Good, please keep doing that, Evo.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'll vote for the candidate that seems to like the Constitution more.

In that case you will be voting for Trump. He likes the Constitution because it gives him the power to make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison HRC and do all the things that only he can do.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

In that case you will be voting for Trump. He likes the Constitution because it gives him the power to make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison HRC and do all the things that only he can do.

The only thing on that list he can do is have HRC indicted. It would take a jury and a judge to jail her.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The only thing on that list he can do is have HRC indicted. It would take a jury and a judge to jail her.

You missed the sarcasm. He can't do anything on that list despite what he keeps saying. He can't make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison any citizen or do most of the things he's claimed ONLY he can do.. Congress initiates laws including tax laws. Tariffs are based on treaties which involve the Senate. Federal charges are initiated in the DOJ and tried in the courts. I've never heard of a president asking the DOJ to file charges against an individual. What if they refuse? Does he fire the AG and appoint a new one on the condition s/he charge HRC? In any case the Senate needs to approve a cabinet level appointment.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

You missed the sarcasm. He can't do anything on that list despite what he keeps saying. He can't make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison any citizen or do most of the things he's claimed ONLY he can do.. Congress initiates laws including tax laws. Tariffs are based on treaties which involve the Senate. Federal charges are initiated in the DOJ and tried in the courts. I've never heard of a president asking the DOJ to file charges against an individual. What if they refuse? Does he fire the AG and appoint a new one on the condition s/he charge HRC? In any case the Senate needs to approve a cabinet level appointment.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Since the DOJ is part of the Executive, the president can ask or order the DOJ to do what he wants (within legality). Have you ever heard of a president interfering with an FBI investigation, telling them not to indict? Sounds eerily familiar and current.

PS: The AG serves at the pleasure of the president, so they typically do as told or resign.

 

[jim hardy]

...AG said she'd defer to FBI but changed her tune when Comey re-opened the investigation.

This 'Hatch act' talk is silliness. Since when does criminal investigation proceed at convenience of investigatees?

I've never lived through anything like this. My memories of McCarthy hearings pale alongside this frenzy. Of course Miami had only two or three TV channels back then.

old jim