2016 Election

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hilary may not be a very nice person. But evil? Seriously? In a contest that includes Trump?




[eta] I find it really hard to understand the level of vitriol against Clinton. Given the kinds of things politicians of every stripe seem to get up to, her shennanigans seem small fry to me. I don't mean by this to suggest that anybody here is sexist 0 just that we, all of us, tend to see people's actions differently depending on their gender (lot of studies show that unconsious bias - where the exact same set of actions/behaviours are viewed wholly differently depending on whether the subject is a woman or a man) but I do think if a male politician had the exact same political motivations and attitudes and acted in the same way whilst in office - he'd be seen very differently. His enemies would still make hay and his disillusioned former supporters wuld still despise - but I doubt anybody would be calling him evil, because he would seem a lightweight compared to some of the other monsters on the field.

Originally Posted by traceur

Not yet, but... It brings up a very interesting question IMO, that really shuns a lot of light on the question of how you judge people: Is it possible - at all - to become the president and not be evil?

If we agree that people are to be judged by their actions, then evil isn't a matter of motive or personality.... Even when it includes matters of personality as inflouncing attributes - a psychopath or a pedophile or a rapists aren't evil until the first time they act on it. Likewise, Hitler was probably a relatively decent person prior to taking over Germany. On the same vein, someone can have decent motives and try their best to do well by others but then one day makes a bad decision that causes more harm then good.

But that brings another question - how do you scale it? Do certain amoral actions automatically make you evil, or is it a matter of balance? Would someone who murdered 50 people but saved the lives of 200 be a better person then someone who has done neither?

Then there's a matter of how you judge someone's responsibility and agency, how you judge non-action choices, how do you judge accidents or conflicting intentions, how do you relate it to the circumstances, et...

Depending on how you answer all of the above, you might very well be able to determine that the moment obama came into office he became responsible for every wrongful death in America which can be related to the federal government.

You can propitiate all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot propitiate all the people all the time;

so,

the utilitarian function of the President is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people while upholding the Constitution. The President is in a unique position to assess that big picture since the President's constituency is all citizens. That constituency; however, sees only parts of the big picture. It uses character assessment to fill in the gaps which breaks down roughly to:

Bad - those who do what's wrong just for their own aggrandizement. Most of the constituency has no use for bad people.

Good - those who do what's right; but, often only because they have to. Good people make the world go 'round. This is where most of the constituency and their choices, in their own image, for President fall.

Honorable - those who usually (no one's perfect) do what's right just for the sake of doing what's right, not because they have to. While good people make the world go 'round, honorable people set the pace. Most of the constituency aspires to at least be represented by an honorable President.

After character comes personality assessment. Presidents have to be able to work with other people.

When someone labels a President (or candidate) "evil" it generally means they find them insufficiently utilitarian, less than a good person, and disagreeable thus failing in all three areas of assessment. It doesn't necessarily mean oppressive, just self serving and indifferent . That's the part of the big picture they came away with.

Society couples actions and motives. That's why we vest authority in the President, who's in a unique position to get the big picture, to grant pardons. The sitting President will be judged by the next President in that regard. At that level, someone who murdered 50 people; but, saved the lives of 200 can be a better person than someone who has done neither if the continued existence of the country hanged in the balance. Below that level, protocols are well established and what ifs are fruitless folly.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hilary may not be a very nice person. But evil? Seriously? In a contest that includes Trump?

[eta] I find it really hard to understand the level of vitriol against Clinton. Given the kinds of things politicians of every stripe seem to get up to, her shennanigans seem small fry to me. <snip>

What I find interesting and hard to understand is just
"what" has Hillary actually done that people don't like ?
I would like to see the list of specifics

My wife says she will not vote for Hillary.
My wife detests her but will not give any particular reason(s)
My wife is much more liberal than me - so go figure.

The GOP Koolade is powerful stuff

,

[sexobon]

Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, just to ride his coattails.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, just to ride his coattails.

It's more likely true for some if you drop that last clause.


.

[sexobon]

You make a good point: if she got into bed with Bill after he betrayed their relationship, maybe she'd get into bed with the leadership of another country after they betrayed us.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, just to ride his coattails.

Even if that was true, why would it be so bad?
Is it worse than one spouse taking another back for financial security, for the sake of the children, for religious reasons? Why is ambition worse?
I mean it is often judged that way here, but I thought America celebrated all of the above?

Not making this European vs American - I think we should value ambition and success more in this country. But to suggest she was somehow freeloading, just because she chose to remain in a relationship is very harsh. She's an intelligent, ambitious person, so who cares whether it was a hormonal decision, a romantic one or a business transaction. Do you really want a President who will turn his/ her back on duty for "love" like King Edward VIII?

[sexobon]

Well, if it's a her and she reeeeeeeally loves me ...

[it]

Do you ever wonder if they just had an open marriage but when they got caught they figured good ol' conservative america would be even less accepting towards that?

That we missed the part of them laughing and teasing each other with stories about Monica on his end and stories about the pool boy on hers?

[Undertoad]

Hillary is 100% political, zero warmth, zero personality, every word carefully chosen, lies like a fuckin' rug and smiles while doing it, no conviction too deeply held to sell out for the right price, I would vote for her if I were a voting person.

Trump is the anti-Hillary, not via warmth but via strength of personality and anti-political shoot from the hip quality. That's actually what we want right now, a giant blowhard douche. That's why no gaffe can fell him. After 7 years of intellectual, quiet, considered Presidency, we are ready for a cycle of the polar opposite. We had Mom for a while, and that was OK, but now we want Dad, even if he's... Dad.

The fantasy is that he would cut the Gordian knot of a lot of problems. It would appear there is nobody in the world willing to call Putin a dick. It would be at least tremendously entertaining to see Trump take on a Kim Jong Un.

[Sundae]

We'd all die laughing I suppose...

[it]

If he wins, I wonder if others might follow. It could actually create an interesting precedent - instead of just lobbying other politicians, rich people lobbying for themselves.

And it doesn't have to just be conservatives - There are plenty of impressive and highly popular capitalist tycoons on the progressive side as well. Who's to say someone like Elon Musk* or Larry Page couldn't run? Or perhaps the next Steve Jobs?


*. After the republicans appealed the birth certificate requirements before the 2024 elections when Schwarzenegger was head of the GOP, obviously.

[Clodfobble]

The only thing cooler than X, is having X and walking away from it.

I believe Trump doesn't want the presidency. He wants to prove he could have it if he wanted, then go back to fucking around all day with his billions. Hillary, on the other hand, wants it too badly. She's the desperate ugly sorority girl who doesn't understand that she should have just stuck with the other nerds who quietly get all the important shit done in the background.

[Clodfobble]

I'll tell you what I'm really hoping, even fantasizing about with the same part of my brain that other people use for porn:



Jon Stewart 2016.



But like porn, we all know life never really happens that way.

[it]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'll tell you what I'm really hoping, even fantasizing about with the same part of my brain that other people use for porn:



Jon Stewart 2016.



But like porn, we all know life never really happens that way.

*fap fap fap*

Not for 2016, no... But I wouldn't be shocked if he does go into politics a few years down the line. He has talked a lot about the impotence he feels about his position as a commentator and not been able to do anything. Even then, I doubt it would ever be the presidency. Frankly I don't think America would vote for an agnostic Jewish guy as a president (And I am saying that as an agnostic Jewish guy), but they already have when it comes to senators and congressmen. Ofcourse, he'll then become Secretary of State, where he'll gets exposed to even more information and feels even more powerless to stop it, and.. That is the story of how he dies. The End.

[Big Sarge]

glatt - That site is rigged!! I ought to sue it for cruel and inhumane mental torture. It selected HILLARY as the candidate for me! Hillary? Really? The end is near, I'm going to prepare for the rapture.