Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Newsflash: Every Presidential candidate would be willing to violate policies as President. It's more or less a given.

If you threw out every politician who has violated any rules in their tenure, Washington would be empty.

[wierd]

A sad but unfortunate truth. There are no honest politicians.

[Helgoland]

Helgoland-- You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to it being correct. If you feel my evaluation is incorrect, please state why. Otherwise, your argument amounts to "[we] Disagree, therefore wrong." As far as I can tell, I am correct. If I am incorrect, please state why- Being correct/maximally informed is my ultimate goal. If you have contradictory information or evidence, please provide it.

Nonono, it's not about you being correct or incorrect. As far as I can tell, the discussion went like this:

- The argument starts somehow: Did Hillary act wrong with her emails?
- wierd presents some facts: The released contents of her mailbox.
- wierd states that he considers these contents to be sufficient evidence of misconduct on Hillary's side.
- Others (I don't remember who) disagree: They do not consider the emails presented sufficient evidence.
- wierd disagrees, and is joined by other folks (again, I don't remember who): They do consider them sufficient evidence.
- The original others repeat what they said before
- This is repeated ad nauseam; fatigue sets in
- Helgo makes an inept comparison

Aaaand here we are. It's not that anyone disagrees about the hard facts, but rather about the correct interpretation: There is no objective right and wrong here, and one shouldn't pretend that there is. And if one keeps arguing after such an impasse has been reached, one is said to be beating a dead horse.

(I'd like to add that this is how I view the religion thread atheists as well: I see their point, and I realize that the reason I disagree with them is mostly that I interpret the availible facts - ie bible quotes, oral traditions, rituals, historical accounts etc - differently. But they just keep going on and on and on like they're objectively right... They're beating a pile of mushy pulped flesh that used to be a horse some two hundred years ago.)

E: Damn ninjas...

[wierd]

Many treat Hillary as the best possible candidate out of the total presidential lineup, mostly for political affiliation reasons. I disagree with this outlook and consider Hillary from a multi-faceted point of view-- The email server is one of many small instances where she has become quite agitated about being questioned-- To me, this illustrates a rather dictatorial mindset. (Not surprising, given she is a senior head of state. That kind of job tends to attract such people statistically.) I feel that this kind of mindset is not appropriate for an elected official, and thus do not believe she is a very good candidate at all. Further, her political record is awash with flipflops that look downright schizophrenic in nature, indicating that she probably cant even be relied upon for a politically motivated candidate choice, other than simply having a "D" behind her name. 

I dont beleieve any of the current candidates are suitable for tenure as POTUS. Of the offers, I sadly must concede that I like Bernie Sanders the best, despite some of the failings in his talking points. Given the choices provided (Giant Douches and Shit sandwiches), I have decided that the giant douche is the better choice. It does not mean that I *LIKE* the choice.


Helgo-- Stating such a position up front would have saved us both several postings trying to figure out what the other was saying. As I pointed out, I have a somewhat aspergers-like mind. (I test ... a few... statistical gradiations above the mean on the aspergers adult self-assessment test. You know, the kind of score that basically implies "hmm.. maybe you should consider professional testing?" in a somewhat sarcastic tone. Playing cute word games does not work well with me, FYI.) 

That said, this is precisely why I asked where the goalpost *was*, and that I was not really wanting to play the political version of zeno's paradox. (EG, No matter how much faster achilles is, he will never catch the tortoise-- In this case, no matter how damning the information, it will never be sufficient to convince the other in the debate, because the goal is constantly moved with applied rationalizations.)

[Helgoland]

Many treat Hillary as the best possible candidate out of the total presidential lineup, mostly for political affiliation reasons. I disagree with this outlook and consider Hillary from a multi-faceted point of view-- The email server is one of many small instances where she has become quite agitated about being questioned-- To me, this illustrates a rather dictatorial mindset. (Not surprising, given she is a senior head of state. That kind of job tends to attract such people statistically.) I feel that this kind of mindset is not appropriate for an elected official, and thus do not believe she is a very good candidate at all. Further, her political record is awash with flipflops that look downright schizophrenic in nature, indicating that she probably cant even be relied upon for a politically motivated candidate choice, other than simply having a "D" behind her name.

You see? Lots of evaluation, few hard facts. You're entitled to your opinion, but (luckily) you can't force anyone to accept them as correct

[wierd]

Indeed!  That is indeed an opinion, and I treat it as such. That is why I asked for any contradictory information. Making the most informed choice with my vote is, and has always been, my goal.

I have summarily disqualified Trump; He is quite blatant in his ideologically motivated political rhetoric about exactly what he intends to (attempt) to do. The predictable consequences of those courses of action are.... Not desirable, except perhaps to consummate masochists. Further, like most ideologues, he is big on words, poor on details of implementation. He tends to just restate his intentions a different way when asked the specifics about his rhetorical assertions for policy.  He would make a TERRIBLE president.

Hillary, from her debate speeches anyway-- is a big proponent of one-size-fits-all, "top-down" government administration. When she and Mr Sanders were discussing the ACA in the debates, she was genuinely disturbed by the idea of giving individual states the ability to control how healthcare would be managed at the local level, (despite the fact that the ACA was modelled after a state-specific implementation of just such a healthcare reform)-- Little things like this do not instill a sense of confidence in me, and instead instill a sense of dread reminiscient of how that same "top down", one-size-fits-all approach has panned out in the public school system. For uncontrollable reasons, there will always be local variations in the local need for healthcare-- There might be higher than average concentrations of heavy metals in drinking water, for instance-- Would a one-size-fits-all approach really be efficient to combat that, or would a locale specific initiative?  Etc.  When I say "lots of little things"-- this is exactly what I am referring to.

For much of the reason why I have summarily disqualified Trump, most of the GOP lineup is simmilarly unelectable. It would be downright negligent of me to consider them, for the most part.

That just leaves Bernie.  While I am not a fan of pistachio icecream, if it is the choice between that, and things that are clearly not icecream, and told to pick the best flavor of icecream presented-- I am forced to choose it.  That's the position I find myself in.

[nenjin]

Contradictory information like the policy about emails not being official policy until after she wasn't SoS anymore?

[wierd]

Which was disproven 3 pages back. That policy was in effect prior to her tenure as Secretary of State. Try again.

[Helgoland]

No, that's just called politics.

[wierd]

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

C. S. Lewis



I see Hillary as being "More of the same" that has landed us in the very unpleasant situation we now find ourselves in. As such, in light of the above quote, I feel she is not the correct choice, PRECISELY because she is the most likely to "accomplish things." She scares me just as much as Trump does. (To the center, both extremes are scary.)

[Sheb]

Out of curiosity, is there any case in which you'd vote for one of the likely Republican candidate against Hillary in the general election?

[wierd]

I would likely refuse to vote at all, if forced into that situation. (EG, Trump Vs Clinton) I have principles. It causes problems for me. I will not willingly vote for obvious harm to myself or my country. (I would view a Trump Vs Clinton ballot to be like a Kang Vs Kodos ballot. I dont vote for space mutants.)


As rationalization for this clearly least-productive choice, The US would get the president it 'deserves', even if it is not the one it NEEDS, in that circumstance.

[Aklyon]

You could probably find an independent to vote for in that case.

[wierd]

As stated prior, Of the current crop, Bernie is the "Default" choice. It is not because I like him. It is because I despise him least.

[RedKing]

And this goes back to why I said a few days ago that voter apathy has become voter antipathy.

It's no longer "I'm tired of voting for lemons", it's "I don't want your damn lemons! You know who I am? I'm the guy who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons!"

Which may explain Trump's popularity -- he's the political equivalent of a combustible lemon.