2016 Election

[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.

[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.

[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

,

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.


.

[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]

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.

[sexobon]

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