2016 Election

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Pamela

Whoever has the sharpest creases. I *swoon* for sharp creases!

I don't care how sharp his creases they could never outweigh Trump's hair.

[glatt]

Quizes are sometimes fun.

Take the quiz, tell the computer what you think of the issues, and then let it tell you who matches your positions most closely.

Share your results, if you want.

Based on my understanding of the candidates, I like Bernie Sanders the best, but the computer said:

[DanaC]

Apparently I also side with Sanders.

[it]

Well, ain't this awkward...

[BigV]

Apparently I also side with Sanders.

[DanaC]

Maybe .... maybe deep down, we all side with Sanders* eventually.














* though given a choice I'd probably opt for Colonel Sanders, 'cause chicken.

[it]

You know that wouldn't be a bad business plan, rigging "who's your candidate" quiz to the highest bidder. If that's what they are doing then I am jelly of the site owner for thinking about it first.

[classicman]

Believe it or not, I came up with Sanders on that site as well.

As for V's question - ANYONE BUT KILLARY. seriously. That woman is pure evil.

[it]

I actually find it interesting that Hilary is increasingly portrayed as cold and strategic by her opponents... This is as strategically demanding position as they come.

It's seems like a repeat of the Al Gore vs. George Bush elections - people voting for who they like as a person, not who they'd think would make a better leader.

[BigV]

I think Clinton would be capable. I definitely don't think she's evil. It wasn't my question. And I think Trump would be a fatal mistake. I have heard, since the joint rally with Cruz and Trump, talk of them on the same ticket. Tcha, like that's gonna happen.

[it]

I think it was my question.

Originally Posted by DanaC

* though given a choice I'd probably opt for Colonel Sanders, 'cause chicken.

Well...

[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.

[it]

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.

[DanaC]

I poste dmy edit before I saw your post Trace - that's a really interesting question.

[Sundae]

I'm not so big on the evil thing - that's so subjective.
But do I think Hitler was a jolly nice, balanced chap right up until the second the first Jewish person was killed in Germany because of his laws?

Errrrrr, no.

Do I believe Clinton is evil in my understanding of the word? No, not at all. In that I agree with you, Trac. Politicians are deal-makers, deal-breakers, ultimate diplomats and occasionally even liars of necessity depending on what they perceive as the best interests of their constituency/ beliefs/ country. They also need to be at least in some degree ruthless, or at least ambitious and thick-skinned.

Clinton is not being judged by the standards used to judge Presidents of the past. She's being judged as a woman. IMHO.
But then she's towards the left of American politics and I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I'd be less likely to call the gender card on Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter. So I'm as biased as the next person. I just don't try to fuck them or kill them before I talk to them.